Skip to content

Safe-SCOPE Pilot Study

Safe-SCOPE Pilot Study: Standardized Checklist Of Patient Information Exchange

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03117088
Acronym
Safe-SCOPE
Enrollment
7
Registered
2017-04-17
Start date
2017-06-01
Completion date
2017-11-30
Last updated
2018-01-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Quality Assurance of Patient Safety

Keywords

Standardized handover, Online-based, SOFA-Score, ICU, ISBAR3

Brief summary

Study Title Safe- SCOPE Pilot Study Standardized Checklist of Patient Information Exchange Short Title Safe- SCOPE Pilot Study Study Design: Single centre two armed cluster randomised crossover pilot study Study duration: 5 months Objectives: * Influence of standardised checklists on medical/ physician handovers on an Intensive Care Unit -ICU and its influence on patient safety * Satisfaction survey in physicians group Number of patients: All patients treated on OIM during assessment period Checklist Intervention * All physicians working in the department of Intensive Care Medicine and Intermediate Care are informed and enlightened about Safe-SCOPE Pilot Study. After written consent participating physicians will use an online form ISBAR3 Checklist or alternative Checklist for handovers twice a day. * Handover times/schedule: OIM 1,2,3,5, und 6: 7:30 am and 7:30 pm OIM 4 und WEA 1: 7:30 am and 2:00 pm * ISBAR3 Checklist * VICUR Checklist wash- out Phase: * No checklists for one month Efficacy: Patients: * Mortality rate * Duration on ICU * Reuptake on ICU * SOFA Score on admission to ICU, 48h, 72h and 120h after admission * Handover duration per patient * Number of enclosed patients Handover: * Entire handover duration * Interruptions during handover

Detailed description

The simplest definition of patient safety is the prevention of errors and adverse events to patient associated with health care. While health care has become more effective it has also become more complex, with greater use of new technologies, medicines and treatments. Health services treat older and sicker patients who often present with significant co- morbidities requiring more and more difficult decisions as to health care priorities. European data, mostly from European Union Member States, consistently show that medical errors and health care related adverse events occur in 8-12% of hospitalization. For example, the United Kingdom Department of health, in its 2000 report An organisation with a memory, estimated about 850 000 adverse events a year (10% of hospital admissions). Spain (in its 2005 national study of adverse events) and France and Denmark have published incidence studies with similar results. While 23% of European Union citizens claim to have been directly affected by medial errors, 18% claim to have experienced a serious medical error in a hospital and 11% to be prescribed wrong medication. Evidence on medial errors shows that 50% to 70,2% of such harm can be prevented through comprehensive systematic approaches to patient safety. Statistics of the World Health Organisation (WHO) show further more that strategies to reduce the rate of adverse events in the European Union alone would lead to the prevention of more than 750 000 harm-inflicted medial errors per year, leading in turn to over 3,2 million fewer days of hospitalization, 260 000 fewer incidents of permanent disability, and 95 000 fewer deaths per years. Our working group clarifies this as very impressive data and statistics. In aviation checklists are an established instrument to avoid adverse events and so to improve safety. Like in the cockpit also in operating room checklists and briefings can be useful to reduce perceived risks and improve collaboration among operating rooms personnel by controlling safety standards, availability of required sources and responsibility assignment. The World Health Organisation WHO in 2009 established checklist (Save Surgery Saves Lives) is a feasible task increasingly used with individual adaptation. The Implementation has to be ingrained in a hospital wide safety culture with patient safety- related behaviour and perceived personal empowerment. The safe surgery saves lives campaign showed in eight hospitals worldwide with different socio- ecological backgrounds that in around 8. 000 operations mortality and infections rate decreased significantly after using the safe surgery saves lives checklist in operating theatres. Checklists are efficient working tools used as a reminder or to structure processes. They guarantee that processes are objective and reproducible and therefore increase patient- safety. Especially in stress and emergency situations as they exist on an Intensive Care Unit checklists can help to avoid mind mistakes and demonstrate possible decisions. Related to these data and statistics and on that important background we are planning a multi-centre main trial on improving patient safety: Standardized Checklist of Patient Information Exchange. Because there is no information about the magnitude of checklist effects on patient data and there is no risk for the patients we use the Safe SCOPE Pilot study to estimate the effects size of the checklists and to investigate the feasibility of the main trial.

Interventions

OTHERChecklist ISBAR3

Checklist ISBAR 3 Use of an online based checklist for handovers with the following items: Identification Situation Background Assessment Recommendation Read- back Risk Established Checklist as communication tool

OTHERChecklist VICUR

Checklist Vicur Use of an online based alternative checklist for handovers with the following items: Vaccination status Insurance status Contact person Utilisation Rehabilitation Organ donor? Patient decree? alternative checklist missing communication tool

Sponsors

RWTH Aachen University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

two armed cluster randomized crossover three periods prospective single centre pilot study

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Physicians: * all physicians working on ICU (department of Intensive Medicine and Intermediate Care) during data collection * existing written consent Patients: * All patients treated in the department of Intensive Care Medicine and Intermediate Care (OIM) during assessment period who passed at least two online form based handovers

Exclusion criteria

Physicians: * missing written consent * Chief of the department of Intensive Care medicine and Intermediate Care * Colleagues involved in Safe- SCOPE Pilot Study protocol or group of experts Patients: * Age \< 18 years * Pregnancy * ward shift within OIM and hereby associated cluster change

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change of SOFA Score at hour 48admission and hour 48Change of SOFA Score to baseline (admission) and 48 hours after admission

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Duration on ICU30 daysDuration on ICU measured in days
Reuptake on ICU30 daysReuptake on ICU and transferring ward
Handover duration patientup to 3 monthsHandover duration per single patient
Handover duration entireup to 3 monthsentire handover duration
Mortality rate30 daysMortality rate
physicians satisfactionthrough study completion, an average of 5 monthsevaluation of satisfaction by questionnaire
Change of SOFA Score at hour 72baseline and hour 72Change of SOFA Score to baseline (admission) and after 72 hours
Change of SOFA Score at hour 120baseline and hour 120Change of SOFA Score to baseline (admission) and after 120 hours
Interruptionsup to 3 monthsInterruptions during handover categories: none, \< 5min, \> 5min

Countries

Germany

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 15, 2026