31 hours ago Aims and objectives: To quantify quantitative outcomes of a practice change to a blended form of bedside nursing report. Background: The literature identifies several benefits of bedside nursing shift report. However, published studies have not adequately quantified outcomes related to this process change, having either small or unreported sample sizes or not testing for … >> Go To The Portal
Research has shown that the implementation of bedside report has increased patient safety and patient and nurse satisfaction. An evidence-based practice change incorporating bedside report into standard nursing care was implemented and evaluated over a four-month time period on three nursing units.
Full Answer
If properly implemented, nursing bedside report can result in improved patient and nursing satisfaction and patient safety outcomes. However, managers should involve staff nurses in the implementation process and continue to monitor consistency in report format as well as satisfaction with the process.
To quantify quantitative outcomes of a practice change to a blended form of bedside nursing report. The literature identifies several benefits of bedside nursing shift report.
Seven medical-surgical units in a large university hospital implemented a blend of recorded and bedside nursing report. Outcomes monitored included patient and nursing satisfaction, patient falls, nursing overtime and medication errors.
However, there was a decline in nurse perception that report took a reasonable amount of time after bedside report implementation; contrary to these perceptions, there was no significant increase in nurse overtime. Patient falls at shift change decreased substantially after the implementation of bedside report.
Bedside benefits Shift change was included in The Joint Commission's 2009 National Patient Safety Goals, which requires that shift hand-offs must include up-to-date information about the care, treatment, current condition, and recent or anticipated changes in the patient.
Bedside shift reports are the essential transmission of patient information between incoming and outgoing nurses in a patient care setting. This nursing communication provides for the continuity of safe and effective medical care and prevents medical errors.
Bedside shift report (BSR) enables accurate and timely communication between nurses, includes the patient in care, and is paramount to the delivery of safe, high quality care.
Evidence demonstrates bedside shift report is considered best practice when using standardized reporting tools/formatting. Patient safety can be improved by implementing evidence-based transfer of care at the bedside.
Here's what they had to say:Give a Bedside Report. “Check pertinent things together such as skin, neuro, pulses, etc. ... Be Specific, Concise and Clear. “Stay on point with the 'need to know' information. ... When in Doubt, Ask for Clarification. ... Record Everything. ... Be Positive!
It should include the patient's medical history, current medication, allergies, pain levels and pain management plan, and discharge instructions. Providing these sorts of details about your patient in your end of shift report decreases the risk of an oncoming nurse putting the patient in danger.
Research concluded that conducting bedside reporting leads to increased patient safety, patient satisfaction, nurse satisfaction, prevented adverse events, and allowed nurses to visualize patients during the shift change. In addition, medication errors decreased by 80% and falls by 100%.
A real safety benefit of bedside handover is the fact that visualising the patient may prompt nurses to recall important information that should be handed over and it may also trigger oncoming staff to ask additional questions. Further, patients have the opportunity to clarify content.
Why should the registered nurse practicing nursing at the bedside be concerned about research for the delivery of quality nursing care? A. Research provides the nurse with knowledge needed to make sound clinical decisions.
Yet a simple strategy to improve communication is to bring the report to the patient's bedside. This facilitates earlier connection between the oncoming nurse and the patient and presents an opportunity for the patient to ask questions and clarify information with both nurses.
Evidence-based practice includes the integration of best available evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values and circumstances related to patient and client management, practice management, and health policy decision-making. All three elements are equally important.
However, there was a decline in nurse perception that report took a reasonable amount of time after bedside report implementation; contrary to these perceptions, there was no significant increase in nurse overtime. Patient falls at shift change decreased substantially after the implementation of bedside report. An intervening variable during the study period invalidated the comparison of medication errors pre- and postintervention. There was some indication from both patients and nurses that bedside report was not always consistently implemented.
Outcomes monitored included patient and nursing satisfaction, patient falls, nursing overtime and medication errors.
However, there was a decline in nurse perception that report took a reasonable amount of time after bedside report implementation; contrary to these perceptions, there was no significant increase in nurse overtime. Patient falls at shift change decreased substantially after the implementation of bedside report.
The literature identifies several benefits of bedside nursing shift report. However, published studies have not adequately quantified outcomes related to this process change, having either small or unreported sample sizes or not testing for statistical significance.
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: Bedside nursing handover may be an efficient way to achieve quality nursing outcomes, supporting the personalization of care. Recent literature attests to how bedside nursing handover is perceived by cardiac patents, but the experience of nurses participating in these handovers is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to explore nurses’ experiences after the implementation of bedside nursing handover in an Italian cardiac surgical ward. METHOD: A qualitative descriptive research approach was used to respond to the study aim, and the data was collected using two focus groups. RESULTS: The main themes that were identified revolved around improving nursing care, greater professionalism, effective relationships, consequences for the patient, and obstacles to change. Moreover, we found that nurses perceive bedside nursing handover to be effective in promoting patient-centred care. The nurses in our study also felt that any difficulties with the implementation of a bedside nursing handover protocol (e.g. confidentiality) should be addressed through continued nursing education. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a valuable insight into nurses’ perceptions of bedside nursing handover in a single cardiac surgery setting in Italy and is the first qualitative investigation from this perspective. Further research may help to elucidate the impact of bedside nursing handover on clinical and organisational outcomes. Keywords: Care; Cardiac Surgery; Focus Group; Handover; Nursing; Qualitative Research; Personalization
Blended bedside report increases peer-to-peer accountability among nurses, improves communication between nurses as well as patients, and promotes patient safety. Despite the literature that documents bedside report is best, a practical guide to initiating this process in a hospital setting is lacking.
Nurse executives are tasked with helping direct-care nurses connect with patients to improve care experiences. Connecting with patients in compassionate ways to alleviate inherent patient suffering and prevent avoidable suffering is key to improving the patient experience.
Bedside handover is one of nursing care activities which involve patient during nurse-patient interaction a side of patient’s bed between change shift. Patient may inquire all they want to know about their health condition, complaining and request for nursing care. However, the bedside handover often ineffectively run when a group of nurse hand in the nursing care plan for the following nurses shift. This study aimed to describe bedside handover activities based on patient’s perspective in inpatient ward at one military hospital at Jember. This research used a quantitative approach with a descriptive survey design. There were 100 respondents recruited in this study using purposive sampling technique with criteria the patients had received nursing care at least two days in the inpatient ward. Data were collected using bedside report item survey questionnaire to measure bedside handover based on patient perception. The results showed the median of bedside handover was 33 (min-max = 10-40), indicated that the bedside handover from patient’s point of view was in good category. Basically, the nurses have implemented the bedside handover, however there are problems occurred during its’ implementation such as, high burden of nurse’s work, limited time, lack of understanding and awareness regarding bedside handover. Patients have right to receive holistic nursing care, and it is the responsibility of nurses to provide excellent service including the action of bedside handover. Nursing manager should evaluate and supervise the bedside handover for all nurses routinely.
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the impact of person-centered interventions on patient outcomes in an acute care setting. Methods: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Eligible interventions included person-centered interventions that address at least one of these outcomes: pressure ulcer, accidental falls, medication errors, and/or cross infection. Results: The review showed that there is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of person-centered interventions in reducing patient falls. For the other outcomes, existing research provides an insufficient evidence base on which to draw conclusions. Conclusions: Theory of person-centeredness is still in its ascendency. Poor evidence may also be the result of quantitative research designs that are insufficient in studying the impact of a person-centered approach. We postulate that use of mixed-methods designs is beneficial and would give a clearer picture of the impact of person-centered interventions.
This pilot study evaluates a Nursing Handoff Educational Bundle (NHEB) for a cohort of Accelerated Bachelor of Science (ABS) nursing students. The Evidence-Based Bundle consists of an educational workshop, a standardized handoff format, clinical faculty education, and structured, formative evaluation of student handoffs. This study was implemented during Adult Health clinical experiences conducted at four different University-affiliated healthcare institutions in the Northeastern United States. Methods: A pre-test, post-test design was used with a convenience sample of 28 ABS nursing students. Fourteen students who received the NHEB were compared to a similar group (n = 14) who were not exposed. Student handoffs were observed and rated using the Handoff Clinical Examination (CEX) tool while providing and receiving handoffs during clinical experiences. Data was obtained at the beginning and the end of a 15-week time period. Results: The provider handoff scores in the intervention group improved significantly (M = 4.64, SD = 1.3) over the comparison group change scores (M = 1.5, SD 1.34) when measured by independent samples t-test (t = 7.33, p = .000). The handoff recipients’ scores in the intervention group also improved significantly (m = 5.5, SD = 1.01) compared to no improvement in the recipient control group (M = -0.36, SD = 1.39), (t = 12.7, p = .000). Conclusions: Without structured handoff education, nursing students are passive recipients during handoffs and do not engage in safety communication practices. Exposure to a NHEB improves student handoff communication skills and provides an opportunity to practice evidence-based handoff skills with structured support during clinical experiences. The NHEB could be considered for incorporation into prelicensure programs. Further study using a larger sample size is recommended based on these preliminary findings. Additionally, this intervention should be evaluated in novice nurse cohorts.
Non-verbal handover, standard at the department, is conducted via the electronic health record, in absence of the patient, and without a set structure. The aim of the study was to compare person-centered handover with non-verbal handover in an oncological inpatient setting with regard to patient satisfaction.
The research article under review is entitled “A Quantitative Assessment of Patient and Nurse Outcomes of Bedside Nursing Report Implementation” by Sand-Jecklin & Sherman (2014). The purpose of the research article is to quantify the impact of a mixed type of bedside report on nurse and patient outcomes in a hospital.
The research question of the articles is that what is the impact of the mixed type of bedside report on nurse and patient outcomes? The research article quantified the impact of the mixed type of bedside report using a five-point Likert scale in measuring responses of patients and nurses (Sand-Jecklin & Sherman, 2014).
The study employed the quasi-experimental design in quantifying the impact of the mixed type of bedside report on nurses and patients. The design allowed the collection of data in three phases, namely, baseline, 3 months, and 13 months (Sand-Jecklin & Sherman, 2014).
The used variable sample sizes of patients and nurses, which varied according to the phases of the study. At baseline, 3 months, and 13 months phases, the sample sizes were 233, 157, and 154 patients respectively (Sand-Jecklin & Sherman, 2014).
The authors collected data from nurses and patients by administering surveys to them. Patient Views on Nursing Care and Nursing Assessment of Shift Report were survey tools used in collecting data from patients and nurses respectively ( (Sand-Jecklin & Sherman, 2014).
The limitations are that the study employed a convenience method of sampling, surveys did not have primary identifiers, and responses had some inconsistencies (Sand-Jecklin & Sherman, 2014).
The findings of the study adequately answered the research question for they quantified and outlined outcomes emanating from the implementation of the mixed type of bedside nursing report.