Free Essay: Evaluation of Nurses' Handover Practice in an Acute Outpatient Dialysis Unit

To carry out the survey on the handover practice, the team decided to use questionnaires. These questionnaires were all online and were answered via the internet. The questionnaires had intergraded open-ended and multiple choice type of questions depending on the required data.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In the sample population, a count of 25 completed the questionnaire, 29 started and 38 viewed it. Evaluating in fractional data, the above percentages can be reduced to;

Completed/started [86.21%] Completed/viewed [65.79%] and Started/viewed [76.32%].Graphical Analysis

Thus, results in graphical analysis are represented as follows.

Question 3: How Do You Evaluate the Handover Process of the Acute Dialysis Unit?

Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 1.04Mean: 2.80 Variance: 1.08Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 1.10Mean: 2.96 Variance: 1.21

Total: 24 Standard Deviation: 1.12Mean: 3.29 Variance: 1.26

Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 1.10Mean: 3.72 Variance: 1.26

Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 0.91Mean: 2.64 Variance: 0.82

Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 1.12Mean: 2.4 Variance: 1.25

Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 0.96Mean: 2.6 Variance: 0.92

Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 0.54Mean: 2.04 Variance: 0.29

Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 0.97Mean: 2.88 Variance: 0.94

Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 0.90Mean: 3.32 Variance: 0.81

Total: 25 Standard Deviation: 1.26Mean: 3.44 Variance: 1.59Question 4: How do you personally evaluate the efficiency of the handover process in the Acute Dialysis Unit?

Total25

Mean3.60

Standard Dev.0.71

Variance0.50

Total25

Mean3.08

Standard Dev.1.15

Variance1.33

Total25

Mean3.20

Standard Dev.0.96

Variance0.92

Total25

Mean2.16

Standard Dev.0.94

Variance0.89

Total25

Mean3.24

Standard Dev.1.16

Variance1.36

lefttop

Total25

Mean2.64

Standard Dev.1.04

Variance1.07

Total24

Mean3.75

Standard Dev.0.90

Variance0.80

Total25

Mean2.80

Standard Dev.1.04

Variance1.08

ELECTRONIC HANDOVER

Total25

Mean2.48

Standard Dev.1.05

Variance1.09

lefttop

Total25

Mean2.52

Standard Dev.1.23

Variance1.51

Total25

Mean3.08

Standard Dev.1.15

Variance1.33

Report

In the above analysis, the majority of the sample population consists of the staff nurses. Their number is followed by the change nurses who are about half the population of the staff nurses. The other nurses can be inferred to be equally distributed among the sample population. In terms of the number of years worked in their current stations, most nurses who answered the questioners have about over one year to five years in their current stations. Of importance is also those with over five to ten years of experience in the field. Thus, it is plausible to conclude that the nurses who have joined their current stations recently to those with five years of experience consist of a majority of the population of interest (Witten, n.d.). It is therefore probabilistic to conclude that the group with the maximum influence in the data outcome is the staff nurses who have served for zero to five years in their capacity. A change in the general opinion of this group would thus be causative to maximum impact in the data outcome.

In the analysis of variance, mean and standard deviations, it is seen that the mean never exceeds four people while the variance and the standard deviations keep well within three or less. This shows consistency according to the x test in probability (Jaynes, n.d.). It is keen to note that depending on the limits and the sensitivity of the analysis, however, these variations can be assumed to vary within the given question or data but consistent across the board.

In the case of evaluating the handover process of the acute dialysis unit, bulk of the respondents report that they have been provided with adequate information about their patients. Bulk of the involved accept that they have adequate information on their patients.

However, there seems to be no clear distinction on the issue of systematic presentation of data. In the case above, the number of those who agree with the question that the data has been provided in a systematic manner to those who argue otherwise remains probabilistically equal. On analyzing the next piece of data however, those who feel that they are given relevant information during the hand over process feel slightly outweigh those that claim the opposite.

In the analysis of the information that was given to the respondents however, it is majority view that the information given was relevant and presented appropriately. Basing conclusions from the above data, it is safe to assume that the information given was presented in a manner that was easy to follow, it was up to date, given using appropriate communication skills and that the respondent was able to follow through and make clarification on the information where one did not understand.

Despite the fact that the respondents agreed to proper dissemination of information, the above data clearly shows that this did not aid in the understanding of the dialysis treatment plan and in the understanding of the patients nursing needs. Thus, the two questions brings into focus the fact that proper dissemination of information from one shift to the next did not necessarily bring about the ability to recognize the patient treatment plans and nursing needs.

In the process of handing over, figures from the data show that the pertained aspect is very effective. As shown in the data it is probabilistically plausible to infer that attendance of nurses to the handover process was satisfactory. It is also important to pay attention to the fact that majority of the nurses feel that the aforementioned process is not too long hence leading to the conclusion that this is an effective method of disseminating information between various shifts.

In the case of involving patients in the treatment process, majority of the respondents agreed that the structure of the process of the handover indirectly involves patients in this handover process. However, a considerable number of respondents respond that patients are not informed of the treatment plan after the conclusion of the handover process. Thus, the data brings to the conclusion that patient involvement is largely indirect in the handover process and the patient is not directly involved in the handover process and neither is he/she informed of the treatment plan after the conclusion of the handover process.

From the data, it can be inferred that the handover included loss of significant information. From the survey, the population is in clear support of the fact that important information pertaining the treatment of the patients is usually lost during the handover process. 21 out of 25 respondents concur with the statement which shows that by transference, eighty percent of the population has lost key patient information during the handover period. On further analysis of the data, it is revealed that the cause of the loss of data is majorly by lack of focus and in giving of irrelevant information during this handover period. From the information above, majority of the population admit to either losing focus or giving of irrelevant information during the survey.

In substitution to the conventional method, the electronic method of carrying out seems to be more efficient. From the above information, it is evident that majority of the staff has been trained to use the electronic handover method. Response to another question also show that the nurses are in agreement to the fact that an electronic handover method contains adequate patient information to aid in the treatment process. However, majority of the sample size claim that the electronic handover method is not readily available. Thus, it can be concluded that the electronic method is an efficient method of handing over, though not readily available in the abovementioned field (Sedgewick, n.d.).

On asking the nurses on what worked well for them in the current handover process, majority of the nurses quoted either the fact that information in the current process is disseminated in a proper and efficient manner or that the current system saves time taken in dissemination of information. Thus, they quoted that at the moment, especially with the use of the electric system, the handover system is very effective in the dissemination of patient information and data. The fact that the current system enabled constant update of information to the staff was also severally mentioned as a positive factor in the current system. In the fact that the current method saves time, the respondents quoted that the current method is very efficient in the time utility factor. It was a general statement that the current method of handing over is brief hence it gives the personnel more time to attend to the patients.

The nurses in response to the question inquiring on the weaknesses of the current system, one recurring factor was the omission of data. It was severally commented that the process, though fast, led to constant loss of data due to this focus on speed and less focus on the amount of information. Another factor that attributed to the loss of information according to the nurses was the fact that not all the staff was able to go through with the handover process since their number was quite high. In the case of the verbal handing over process, lack of evidence was also a recurring factor. This was further explained by one statement that verbal handing over does not provide the chance to record thus making it difficult to infer to the said data. In case of the electronic method, lack of hardcopy was also noted as a factor in the case that printer were limited in number and accessibility.

In conclusion, the staff had suggestions on improvement of the system. The first suggestion was to the effect that time be allocated to this process to prevent wastage. This was a suggestion that was quite repetitive in the analysis. It was also suggested that it would be better to combine both the electronic and manual handing over systems to the dissemination of information.

References

Jaynes, E., n.d. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. s.l.:s.n.

Sedgewick, R., n.d. Bundle of Alogarithms in Java, Third Edition, Fundamentals, Data Structures, Sorting, Searching and Graph Alogarithms. s.l.:s.n.

Witten, I. H., n.d. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. s.l.:s.n.