Table 2 Determinants of handover quality as perceived by critical care nurses (N = 201)
From: Shift handover quality in Saudi critical care units: determinants from nurses’ perspectives
Determinants of handover quality | Total (N = 201) | |
|---|---|---|
No. | % | |
Handover quality | ||
Poor | 2 | 1.0 |
Fair | 11 | 5.5 |
Good | 98 | 48.8 |
Very good | 73 | 36.3 |
Excellent | 17 | 8.5 |
Staffing | ||
Inadequate | 67 | 33.3 |
Marginal | 57 | 28.4 |
Adequate | 77 | 38.3 |
Perceived level of current Nurse experience | ||
Novice | 11 | 5.5 |
Advanced beginner | 17 | 8.5 |
Competent | 122 | 60.7 |
Proficient | 20 | 10.0 |
Expert | 31 | 15.4 |
Intrusions experienced | ||
Yes | 120 | 59.7 |
No | 81 | 40.3 |
The impact of intrusion on handover | ||
Very negative impact | 9 | 4.5 |
Negative impact | 72 | 35.8 |
Neutral / no impact | 98 | 48.8 |
Positive impact | 22 | 10.9 |
Very positive impact | 0 | 0 |
Sources of intrusion | ||
Patients | 95 | 47.3 |
Families | 110 | 54.7 |
Colleagues | 100 | 49.8 |
Other | 43 | 21.4 |
Experienced distraction | ||
Yes | 163 | 81.1 |
No | 38 | 18.9 |
Distraction impact on handover | ||
Very negative impact | 7 | 3.4 |
Negative impact | 100 | 49.8 |
Neutral / no impact | 94 | 46.8 |
Positive impact | 0 | 0.0 |
Very positive impact | 0 | 0.0 |
Sources of distraction* | ||
Call bell | 88 | 43.8 |
Alarms from monitors and iv pumps | 159 | 79.1 |
Other | 69 | 34.3 |
Technology used in received handover * | ||
Electronic medical record | 151 | 75.1 |
Bedside documentation technology | 109 | 54.2 |
Handheld applications | 39 | 19.4 |
Face-to-face communication handover | ||
Yes | 195 | 97.0 |
No | 6 | 3.0 |
If handover communication was not face-to-face, how was it delivered? | ||
Written | 103 | 51.2 |
Oral | 98 | 48.8 |
Shift handover guided by a tool | ||
Yes | 197 | 98.0 |
No | 4 | 2.0 |
Type of tool | ||
Checklist | 15 | 7.5 |
Mnemonic device such as SBAR, ISHARED, IPASSTHEBATON | 161 | 80.1 |
Other | 25 | 12.4 |