Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2022; 39(02): 216-224
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715524
Original Article

Evaluation of a Modified SBAR Report to Physician Tool to Standardize Communication on Neonatal Transport

Shaneela Shahid
1   Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
2   Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
,
Lehana Thabane
1   Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
2   Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
3   Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University; Biostatistics Unit, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Canada
,
Michael Marrin
4   Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
,
Karen Schattauer
4   Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
,
Laurel Silenzi
4   Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
,
Sayem Borhan
1   Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
5   Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Canada
,
Balpreet Singh
6   Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
,
Cherian Thomas
7   Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Sumesh Thomas
8   Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective SBAR (situation, background, assessment and recommendation) is a structured format for the effective communication of critically relevant information. This tool was developed as a generic template to provide structure to the communication of clinical information between health care providers. Neonatal transport often presents clinically stressful circumstances where concise and accurate information is required to be shared clearly between multidisciplinary health care providers. A modified SBAR communication tool was designed to facilitate structured communication between nonphysician bedside care providers operating from remote sites and physicians providing decision-making support at receiving care facilities. Prospective interventional study was designed to evaluate the reliability of a “SBAR report to physician tool” in sharing clinically relevant information between multidisciplinary care providers on neonatal transport.

Study Design The study was conducted between 2011 and 2014 by a dedicated neonatal transport service based at McMaster Children's Hospital which provides care for approximately 500 infants in Southern Ontario annually. In the preintervention phase, 50 calls were randomly selected for the evaluation and 115 consecutively recorded transport calls following adoption of the reporting tool. The quality of calls prior to and after the intervention was assessed by reviewers independently. Inter-rater agreement was also assessed for both periods.

Results Inter-rater agreement between raters was moderate to perfect in most components of the SBAR “report to the physician tool” except for the assessment component, which showed fair agreement during both preintervention and postintervention periods. There was an improvement in global score (primary outcome) with a mean difference of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77–1.14; p < 0.001) and in cumulative score with a mean difference of 8.55 (95% CI: 7.26–9.84; p < 0.001) in postintervention period.

Conclusion The use of the SBAR report to physician tool improved the quality of clinical information shared between nonphysician members of the neonatal transport team and neonatal transport physicians.

Key Points

  • Long-Accurate and concise information sharing is crucial for decision-making in neonatal transport.

  • Information sharing between multidisciplinary teams can be enhanced by using a commonly understood information sharing template.

  • The SBAR report to physician tool improves the quality of information shared between multidisciplinary team members in neonatal transport.

Keywords

SBAR - neonatal transport - communication tool - handover

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 10 May 2020

Accepted: 02 July 2020

Article published online:
20 August 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Price-Douglas W, Romito J, Taylor R. Neonatal Nursing Transport Standards: Guideline for Practice, 3rd ed. Glenview, IL: National Association of Neonatal Nurses; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Woodward G, Insoft R, Kleinman M. Guidelines for Air and Ground Transport of Neonatal and Pediatric Patients. 3rd ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Lim MT, Ratnavel N. A prospective review of adverse events during interhospital transfers of neonates by a dedicated neonatal transfer service. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2008; 9 (03) 289-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Whyte HE, Jefferies AL. Canadian Paediatric Society, Fetus and Newborn Committee. The interfacility transport of critically ill newborns. Paediatr Child Health 2015; 20 (05) 265-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Raymond M, Harrison MC. The structured communication tool SBAR (situation, background, assessment and recommendation) improves communication in neonatology. S Afr Med J 2014; 104 (12) 850-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cornell P, Gervis MT, Yates L, Vardaman JM. Impact of SBAR on nurse shift reports and staff rounding. Medsurg Nurs 2014; 23 (05) 334-342
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 The Joint Commission National patient safety goals. Accessed July 21, 2017 at: http://www.jcrinc.com/National-Patient-Safety-Goals/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Agency for Health care Research and Quality. Accessed July 22, 2017 at: http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Topics/PatientSafety/SafetyGeneral/Tools/SBARTechniqueforCommunicationASituationalBriefingModel.htm
    PubMed
  • 9 Australian Commission for Safety and Quality in Health Care. Australian Commission for safety and quality in health care ISBAR revisited: identifying and solving barriers to effective handover in interhospital transfer. Accessed July 22, 2017 at: http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/clinical-communications/clinical-handover/national-clinical-handover-initiative-pilot-program/isbar-revisited-identifying-and-solving-barriers-to-effective-handover-in-interhospital-transfer/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Institute of Health Care improvement, April 13, 2016. Available at: https://www.psqh.com/news/i-pass-and-sbar-handoff-tools-have-proven-benefits/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 WHO patient safety solutions| volume 1, solution 3 | May 2007. Accessed July 22, 2017 at: www.who.int/patientsafety/solutions/patientsafety/PS-Solution3.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Stevens JD, Bader MK, Luna MA, Johnson LM. Cultivating quality: implementing standardized reporting and safety checklists. Am J Nurs 2011; 111 (05) 48-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gordon BM, Wnek TF, Glorius N, Hasdorff C, Shiverski J, Ginn J. Post-fall decision tree development and implementation. J Nurs Care Qual 2010; 25 (04) 358-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wentworth L, Diggins J, Bartel D, Johnson M, Hale J, Gaines K. SBAR: electronic handoff tool for noncomplicated procedural patients. J Nurs Care Qual 2012; 27 (02) 125-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shannon SE, Long-Sutehall T, Coombs M. Conversations in end-of-life care: communication tools for critical care practitioners. Nurs Crit Care 2011; 16 (03) 124-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Amato-Vealey EJ, Barba MP, Vealey RJ. Hand-off communication: a requisite for perioperative patient safety. AORN J 2008; 88 (05) 763-770 , quiz 771–774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Boaro N, Fancott C, Baker R, Velji K, Andreoli A. Using SBAR to improve communication in interprofessional rehabilitation teams. J Interprof Care 2010; 24 (01) 111-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jenerette C, Brewer C. Situation, background, assessment, and recommendation (SBAR) may benefit individuals who frequent emergency departments: adults with sickle cell disease. J Emerg Nurs 2011; 37 (06) 559-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Field TS, Tjia J, Mazor KM. et al. Randomized trial of a warfarin communication protocol for nursing homes: an SBAR-based approach. Am J Med 2011; 124 (02) 179.e1-179.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Woodhall LJ, Vertacnik L, McLaughlin M. Implementation of the SBAR communication technique in a tertiary center. J Emerg Nurs 2008; 34 (04) 314-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Edwards C, Woodard EK. SBAR for maternal transports: going the extra mile. Nurs Womens Health 2008; 12 (06) 515-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Merten H, Lubberding S, van Wagtendonk I, Johannesma PC, Wagner C. Patient safety in elderly hip fracture patients: design of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2011; 11 (01) 59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intra-class correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15 (02) 155-163
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Application to Practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 25 R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2018. . Accessed February 10, 2015 at: https://www.gbif.org/tool/81287/r-a-language-and-environment-for-statistical-computing
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Kesten KS. Role-play using SBAR technique to improve observed communication skills in senior nursing students. J Nurs Educ 2011; 50 (02) 79-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Achrekar MS, Murthy V, Kanan S, Shetty R, Nair M, Khattry N. Introduction of situation, background, assessment, recommendation into nursing practice: a prospective study. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2016; 3 (01) 45-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Davis RL. Using SBAR as a preconference reporting tool for nursing students. Nurse Educ 2016; 41 (02) 74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lancaster RJ, Westphal J, Jambunathan J. Using SBAR to promote clinical judgment in undergraduate nursing students. J Nurs Educ 2015; 54 (3, Suppl): S31-S34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kotsakis A, Mercer K, Mohseni-Bod H, Gaiteiro R, Agbeko R. The development and implementation of an inter-professional simulation based pediatric acute care curriculum for ward health care providers. J Interprof Care 2015; 29 (04) 392-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cornell P, Gervis MT, Yates L, Vardaman JM. Improving shift report focus and consistency with the situation, background, assessment, recommendation protocol. J Nurs Adm 2013; 43 (7-8): 422-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Christie P, Robinson H. Using a communication framework at handover to boost patient outcomes. Nurs Times 2009; 105 (47) 13-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dunsford J. Structured communication: improving patient safety with SBAR. Nurs Womens Health 2009; 13 (05) 384-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Guise JM, Lowe NK. Do you speak SBAR?. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2006; 35 (03) 313-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Compton J, Copeland K, Flanders S. et al. Implementing SBAR across a large multihospital health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012; 38 (06) 261-268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 De Meester K, Verspuy M, Monsieurs KG, Van Bogaert P. SBAR improves nurse-physician communication and reduces unexpected death: a pre and post intervention study. Resuscitation 2013; 84 (09) 1192-1196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wong HJ, Bierbrier R, Ma P, Quan S, Lai S, Wu RC. An analysis of messages sent between nurses and physicians in deteriorating internal medicine patients to help identify issues in failures to rescue. Int J Med Inform 2017; 100: 9-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Renz SM, Boltz MP, Wagner LM, Capezuti EA, Lawrence TE. Examining the feasibility and utility of an SBAR protocol in long-term care. Geriatr Nurs 2013; 34 (04) 295-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wilson D, Kochar A, Whyte-Lewis A, Whyte H, Lee KS. Evaluation of situation, background, assessment, recommendation tool during neonatal and pediatric interfacility transport. Air Med J 2017; 36 (04) 182-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Haig KM, Sutton S, Whittington J. Joint Commission Journal of Quality and Patient Safety. SBAR: a shared mental model for improving communication between clinicians. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2006; 32 (03) 167-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Miller K, Riley W, Davis S. Identifying key nursing and team behaviours to achieve high reliability. J Nurs Manag 2009; 17 (02) 247-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Wachter RM, Shojania KG. Internal Bleeding: The Truth Behind America's Terrifying Epidemic of Medical Mistakes. New York City, NY: Rugged Land; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Young JQ, Ten Cate O, O'Sullivan PS, Irby DM. Unpacking the complexity of patient handoffs through the lens of cognitive load theory. Teach Learn Med 2016; 28 (01) 88-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Ilan R, LeBaron CD, Christianson MK, Heyland DK, Day A, Cohen MD. Handover patterns: an observational study of critical care physicians. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12 (01) 11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Raiten JM, Lane-Fall M, Gutsche JT. et al. Transition of care in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit: a review of handoffs in perioperative cardiothoracic and vascular practice. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2015; 29 (04) 1089-1095
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Thomas EJ, Sexton JB, Helmreich RL. Discrepant attitudes about teamwork among critical care nurses and physicians. Crit Care Med 2003; 31 (03) 956-959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Greenfield LJ. Doctors and nurses: a troubled partnership. Ann Surg 1999; 230 (03) 279-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Mitchell EL, Lee DY, Arora S. et al. SBAR M&M: a feasible, reliable, and valid tool to assess the quality of, surgical morbidity and mortality conference presentations. Am J Surg 2012; 203 (01) 26-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar