Although it is widely accepted that good handover is important for patient safety, there is only limited evidence that improved handover can lead to reduced patient risk.1,2
Written handover transmits information more reliably than informal communication, especially in conjunction with a verbal component.3 Before this initiative, written weekend handover in general medicine at Barwon Health was variable in content and non-standardised, and information was located in a variety of places. Such non-standardised handovers usually only comprised clinical summaries. We felt this was both a risk to our patients and inefficient for the organisation. It was difficult to ensure that key clinical messages were transmitted across multiple shifts of covering doctors. There was constant pressure for patients to be discharged on weekends, and this was difficult to organise unless instructions could be conveyed to the doctors covering the weekend shifts.
We sought to improve our doctor-to-doctor weekend shift handovers through a system where handover components could be entered electronically. We were aware of other systems such as SBAR (situation–background–assessment–recommendation), ISBAR (identify–situation–background–assessment–request) and ISoBAR (identify–situation–observations–background–agreed plan–read back), but felt these were better for direct person-to-person communication of time-critical information requiring immediate action or escalation.4-6 We required a system of communicating written information to multiple staff members, for actioning in the future (over multiple shifts) in a non-urgent and ongoing manner. None of these existing communication systems contained all of the components we required,4,5,7,8 so we set out to develop our own.
Barwon Health is committed to patient safety. A medical emergency team (MET) system was introduced in 2003 to identify patients with a deteriorating condition using standard criteria, and to prevent adverse events.9-11 Since 2007, the MET call rate has been stabilising at about 60 calls per 1000 admissions across Barwon Health, which is consistent with the rate of emergency calls expected in a mature established system,12-15 although the number of MET calls in general medicine had been increasing up to the time of this study. The intensive care registrar enters the details of all MET calls into SLIC, a locally developed comprehensive clinical information and data collection system for the intensive care unit.
In April 2009, we held a brainstorming session with around 15 general medical interns, registrars and a physician. The session was focused on the components and order of the handover as well as a discussion on why doctors handed over certain patients and what messages they were trying to convey. The components of the handover were placed in an order that corresponded to the way that the handover was structured by experienced doctors at our institution. The acronym “Blue BARRWUE” was created from the initials of the components and a mascot was developed. Reminders about handover were put in place, including automatic paging on Fridays at 12 pm. Combined lists of inpatients belonging to all five general medical units (shared views) were developed to be printed by covering doctors at the beginning of their shift. Teams were encouraged to update their handovers daily as a shared responsibility between intern and registrar (Box 1). This task took about 5–10 minutes at the end of each day. Particular emphasis was placed on Friday handovers to ensure that plans were in place for the weekend for covering doctors to act on. Electronic reports were developed to monitor completion rates. Posters about the new handover system were displayed on the medical wards. New doctors received training in using the system alongside ISBAR. In addition, nurses on the medical wards began printing and reading the handovers to help them plan for weekends.
“Blue” updated working diagnosis: When the working diagnosis is updated in BOSSnet to make it accurate, its colour changes to blue. Updating the working diagnosis was considered the first step in a reliable handover. A working diagnosis had always been entered in BOSSnet in the emergency department, but sometimes this was only the preliminary diagnosis.
The study was performed as a quality improvement project and designed and implemented over a short period of time. Because of this, we required measures for which existing data were available.
Chi-square analysis or the Fisher exact test was performed on all parametric data, and a P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical process control charts were also created for all audits except for the audit of the content of handover notes. These charts included at least 20 data points preceding implementation through to 31 December 2011. Average and upper and lower control lines two standard deviations from the average were calculated using baseline data prior to the implementation of the new handover system. Crossing a control line or eight consecutive data points either above or below the average was considered statistically significant.
There were 2034 general medical inpatients in the 12 months before implementation who met our audit inclusion criteria, and 1731 in the 12 months after implementation.
In the 12 months before implementation, 976 patients (47.98%) had a handover note in BOSSnet, versus 1646 patients (95.09%) in the 12 months after implementation (P < 0.001; rate ratio [RR], 20.75 for presence of a handover note after implementation; 95% CI, 16.33–26.44; Box 2).
In the 12 months before implementation, 167 patients (8.21%) had an updated working diagnosis in BOSSnet, versus 1000 patients (57.77%) in the 12 months after implementation (P < 0.001; RR, 15.29 for the presence of an updated working diagnosis after implementation; 95% CI, 12.66–18.48; Box 2).
The presence of all components of the handover in November 2009 (6 months after implementation) increased in comparison with that in November 2008 (P < 0.001 for all components; Box 3).
In the 12 months before implementation, 289 patients (14.21%) were discharged over weekends, versus 353 (20.39%) in the 12 months after implementation (P < 0.001; RR, 1.44 for weekend discharge after implementation; 95% CI, 1.25–1.65; Box 4).
There were 152 general medical patients for whom MET calls were made in the 12 months before implementation, (7.47%), versus 95 general medical patients (5.49%) for whom MET calls were made in the 12 months after implementation (P = 0.01; RR, 0.73 for MET calls after implementation; 95% CI, 0.57–0.94; Box 5).
Our brainstorming session led to a standardised but flexible format for written handover that was practical and easy to use and resulted in immediate and sustained uptake. Involving clinicians in the development of handover systems has been reported to be useful and certainly allowed us to identify components that we otherwise would have missed.16 As a result, the components of the handover have been remarkably stable — we have not identified any new components that we need to include nor found that any of the existing ones are not relevant — since the implementation of the Blue BARRWUE system.
We believe that the new handover system has had a high sustained uptake as a result of clinical championing by the Head of General Medicine and because of the high value it provides to junior doctors in their daily work.17 The handover is quick and easy to enter into the system, it is flexible and highly visible, and junior doctors use it as an aide-mémoire on their daily rounds and when referring patients, writing discharge summaries and covering difficult shifts. Junior doctors have said that covering without it is like “flying blind”.
1 Computer screen image showing the interface for entering the handover information in the BOSSnet clinical handover system (mock patient data)

2 Proportion of general medical inpatients with a handover note and an updated working diagnosis, and average proportions before implementation of the Blue BARRWUE electronic handover system*

* Proportion of patients with a handover note and proportion of patients with an updated working diagnosis crossed upper control lines after intervention (not shown).
3 Proportion of handover components present in the BOSSnet clinical handover system at 7 pm on Friday evenings in November 2008 and November 2009

4 Proportion of general medical inpatients discharged on weekends from Geelong Hospital before and after implementation of the Blue BARRWUE electronic handover system

5 Proportion of general medical patients for whom MET calls were made on weekends, and trends before and after implementation of the Blue BARRWUE electronic handover system*

* Steady increase in MET calls before implementation and trend in MET calls after implementation did not reach significance by statistical process control analysis.
Received 12 August 2011, accepted 26 July 2012
Abstract
Objectives: To measure the frequency and content of electronic handover before and after implementation of the Blue BARRWUE handover system, and to measure its effect on patient safety and hospital efficiency over weekends.
Design, setting and participants: Point-prevalence study comparing outcomes for general medical inpatients present over weekends before implementation (1 May 2008 to 30 April 2009) and after implementation (1 May 2009 to 30 April 2010) of the Blue BARRWUE handover system at Geelong Hospital.
Intervention: Implementation of the Blue BARRWUE handover system and its components (updated working diagnosis, background, alerts, resuscitation status, requests, who to do what and when, updates and executable discharge plan).
Main outcome measures: Presence of any written handover notes or updated working diagnoses in the BOSSnet clinical information system, content of handover notes, frequency of weekend discharges and medical emergency team (MET) calls before and after implementation.
Results: In the 12 months before implementation of the Blue BARRWUE handover system, 976 patients (47.98%) had a handover note in BOSSnet, versus 1646 patients (95.09%) in the 12 months after implementation (P < 0.001; rate ratio [RR], 20.75; 95% CI, 16.33–26.44). Before implementation, 289 patients (14.21%) were discharged over weekends, versus 353 patients (20.39%) after implementation, (P < 0.001; RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.25–1.65). MET calls were made for 152 general medical patients before implementation (7.47%), versus 95 general medical patients (5.49%) after implementation (P = 0.01; RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.94).
Conclusions: The Blue BARRWUE system has sustainably improved written handover in our organisation and was associated with improvement in both patient safety and hospital efficiency.