Quality improvement opportunities for handover practices in birth centres

A case study from a process perspective

Margaretha Hitzert, I.C. Boesveld, M.A.A. Hermus, J.P. de Graaf, T.A. Wiegers, E.A.P. Steegers, Bert Meijboom, Henk Akkermans

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives
Handovers within and between health care settings are known to affect quality of care. Health care organizations, struggle how to guarantee best care during handovers. The aim of this paper is to evaluate handover practices in Dutch birth centres from a process perspective, to identify obstacles and opportunities for quality improvements.

Methods
This case study in 7 Dutch birth centres was undertaken from a process perspective by conducting observations and using process mapping. This study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

Results
Solutions to obstacles during handovers from a birth centre to a hospital were identified in at least 1 of the 7 birth centres. Four of the centres had agreements with a hospital for client support when a caregiver in a birth centre was absent. Face‐to‐face communication during handover was observed in 6 of the 7 centres. An electronic health record was noted in 1 centre; joint training of acute situations was available in 2 centres with 3 centres indicating that this was not compulsory. Continuity of caregiver was present in 4 birth centres with postpartum care available in 3 centres.

Conclusions
Ensuring quality during handovers requires a case‐specific process approach. This study reveals distinctive aspects during handovers, concrete obstacles, and potential solutions for quality improvements in inter‐organizational networks, transferrable to birth centres in other countries as well.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)590-597
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume24
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2018

Fingerprint

Birthing Centers
Caregivers
Delivery of Health Care
Electronic Health Records
Communication
Organizations

Cite this

Hitzert, Margaretha ; Boesveld, I.C. ; Hermus, M.A.A. ; de Graaf, J.P. ; Wiegers, T.A. ; Steegers, E.A.P. ; Meijboom, Bert ; Akkermans, Henk. / Quality improvement opportunities for handover practices in birth centres : A case study from a process perspective. In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2018 ; Vol. 24, No. 3. pp. 590-597.
@article{ae5f6f1b297c4db4895e5608863c4107,
title = "Quality improvement opportunities for handover practices in birth centres: A case study from a process perspective",
abstract = "Rationale, aims and objectivesHandovers within and between health care settings are known to affect quality of care. Health care organizations, struggle how to guarantee best care during handovers. The aim of this paper is to evaluate handover practices in Dutch birth centres from a process perspective, to identify obstacles and opportunities for quality improvements.MethodsThis case study in 7 Dutch birth centres was undertaken from a process perspective by conducting observations and using process mapping. This study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.ResultsSolutions to obstacles during handovers from a birth centre to a hospital were identified in at least 1 of the 7 birth centres. Four of the centres had agreements with a hospital for client support when a caregiver in a birth centre was absent. Face‐to‐face communication during handover was observed in 6 of the 7 centres. An electronic health record was noted in 1 centre; joint training of acute situations was available in 2 centres with 3 centres indicating that this was not compulsory. Continuity of caregiver was present in 4 birth centres with postpartum care available in 3 centres.ConclusionsEnsuring quality during handovers requires a case‐specific process approach. This study reveals distinctive aspects during handovers, concrete obstacles, and potential solutions for quality improvements in inter‐organizational networks, transferrable to birth centres in other countries as well.",
author = "Margaretha Hitzert and I.C. Boesveld and M.A.A. Hermus and {de Graaf}, J.P. and T.A. Wiegers and E.A.P. Steegers and Bert Meijboom and Henk Akkermans",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1111/jep.12939",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "590--597",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Quality improvement opportunities for handover practices in birth centres : A case study from a process perspective. / Hitzert, Margaretha; Boesveld, I.C.; Hermus, M.A.A.; de Graaf, J.P.; Wiegers, T.A.; Steegers, E.A.P.; Meijboom, Bert; Akkermans, Henk.

In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 24, No. 3, 06.2018, p. 590-597.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality improvement opportunities for handover practices in birth centres

T2 - A case study from a process perspective

AU - Hitzert, Margaretha

AU - Boesveld, I.C.

AU - Hermus, M.A.A.

AU - de Graaf, J.P.

AU - Wiegers, T.A.

AU - Steegers, E.A.P.

AU - Meijboom, Bert

AU - Akkermans, Henk

PY - 2018/6

Y1 - 2018/6

N2 - Rationale, aims and objectivesHandovers within and between health care settings are known to affect quality of care. Health care organizations, struggle how to guarantee best care during handovers. The aim of this paper is to evaluate handover practices in Dutch birth centres from a process perspective, to identify obstacles and opportunities for quality improvements.MethodsThis case study in 7 Dutch birth centres was undertaken from a process perspective by conducting observations and using process mapping. This study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.ResultsSolutions to obstacles during handovers from a birth centre to a hospital were identified in at least 1 of the 7 birth centres. Four of the centres had agreements with a hospital for client support when a caregiver in a birth centre was absent. Face‐to‐face communication during handover was observed in 6 of the 7 centres. An electronic health record was noted in 1 centre; joint training of acute situations was available in 2 centres with 3 centres indicating that this was not compulsory. Continuity of caregiver was present in 4 birth centres with postpartum care available in 3 centres.ConclusionsEnsuring quality during handovers requires a case‐specific process approach. This study reveals distinctive aspects during handovers, concrete obstacles, and potential solutions for quality improvements in inter‐organizational networks, transferrable to birth centres in other countries as well.

AB - Rationale, aims and objectivesHandovers within and between health care settings are known to affect quality of care. Health care organizations, struggle how to guarantee best care during handovers. The aim of this paper is to evaluate handover practices in Dutch birth centres from a process perspective, to identify obstacles and opportunities for quality improvements.MethodsThis case study in 7 Dutch birth centres was undertaken from a process perspective by conducting observations and using process mapping. This study is part of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.ResultsSolutions to obstacles during handovers from a birth centre to a hospital were identified in at least 1 of the 7 birth centres. Four of the centres had agreements with a hospital for client support when a caregiver in a birth centre was absent. Face‐to‐face communication during handover was observed in 6 of the 7 centres. An electronic health record was noted in 1 centre; joint training of acute situations was available in 2 centres with 3 centres indicating that this was not compulsory. Continuity of caregiver was present in 4 birth centres with postpartum care available in 3 centres.ConclusionsEnsuring quality during handovers requires a case‐specific process approach. This study reveals distinctive aspects during handovers, concrete obstacles, and potential solutions for quality improvements in inter‐organizational networks, transferrable to birth centres in other countries as well.

U2 - 10.1111/jep.12939

DO - 10.1111/jep.12939

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 590

EP - 597

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 3

ER -