Article Text

Download PDFPDF

The postoperative handover: a focus group interview study with nurse anaesthetists, anaesthesiologists and PACU nurses
  1. Maria Randmaa1,2,3,
  2. Maria Engström1,3,4,
  3. Christine Leo Swenne3,
  4. Gunilla Mårtensson1,3
  1. 1 Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden
  2. 2 Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/County Council of Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden
  3. 3 Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  4. 4 Nursing Department, Medicine and Health College, Lishui University, China
  1. Correspondence to Maria Randmaa; maaraa{at}hig.se

Abstract

Objectives To investigate different professionals’ (nurse anaesthetists’, anaesthesiologists’, and postanaesthesia care unit nurses’) descriptions of and reflections on the postoperative handover.

Design A focus group interview study with a descriptive design using qualitative content analysis of transcripts.

Setting One anaesthetic clinic at two hospitals in Sweden.

Participants Six focus groups with 23 healthcare professionals involved in postoperative handovers. Each group was homogeneous regarding participant profession, resulting in two groups per profession: nurse anaesthetists (n=8), anaesthesiologists (n=7) and postanaesthesia care unit nurses (n=8).

Results Patterns and five categories emerged: (1) having different temporal foci during handover, (2) insecurity when information is transferred from one team to another, (3) striving to ensure quality of the handover, (4) weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the bedside handover and (5) having different perspectives on the transfer of responsibility. The professionals’ perceptions of the postoperative handover differed with regard to temporal foci and transfer of responsibility. All professional groups were insecure about having all information needed to ensure the quality of care. They strived to ensure quality of the handover by: focusing on matters that deviated from the normal course of events, aiding memory through structure and written information and cooperating within and between teams. They reported that the bedside handover enhances their control of the patient but also that it could threaten the patient's privacy and that frequent interruptions could be disturbing.

Conclusions The present findings revealed variations in different professionals’ views on the postoperative handover. Healthcare interventions are needed to minimise the gap between professionals’ perceptions and practices and to achieve a shared understanding of postoperative handover. Furthermore, to ensure high-quality and safe care, stakeholders/decision makers need to pay attention to the environment and infrastructure in postanaesthesia care.

  • Anaesthetic clinic
  • Handover
  • Postoperative
  • Qualitative study

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • The study was presented in the thesis Randmaa M, Communication and Patient Safety: transfer of information between healthcare personnel in anaesthetic clinics. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 2016. ISBN 978-91-554-9489-6.

  • Contributors All authors (MR, ME, CLS and GM) contributed to the design, interpreted data, drafted and revised the article critically. MR and GM collected the data. Data analysis was primarily conducted by MR and GM, and the data were discussed with all authors (MR, ME, CLS and GM). MR wrote the manuscript under the supervision of ME, CLS and GM. All authors read and approved the final version of the paper.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle and by the County Council Gävleborg. It was also supported by the Patient Insurance LÖF and the Swedish Society of Nursing, but these organizations had no role in the design or running of the study.

  • Competing interests All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: MR has received research grants from Patient Insurance LÖF and the Swedish Society of Nursing; there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

  • Patient consent No patient was included in the study.

  • Ethics approval The Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (reg n. 2011/061).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement There are no additional data available for data sharing.