Cited by 62Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Quality and Management

Barriers and facilitators to improve safety and efficiency of the ICU discharge process: a mixed methods study

Open access
van Sluisveld, Nelleke, Oerlemans, Anke, Westert, Gert, van der Hoeven, Johannes Gerardus, Wollersheim, Hub, Zegers, Marieke·2017·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that suboptimal clinical handover from the intensive care unit (ICU) to general wards leads to unnecessary ICU readmissions and increased mortality. We aimed to gain insight into barriers and facilitators to implement and use ICU discharge practices. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was conducted, using 1) 23 individual and four focus group interviews, with post-ICU patients, ICU managers, and nurses and physicians working in the ICU or general ward of ten Dutch hospitals, and 2) a questionnaire survey, which contained 27 statements derived from the interviews, and was completed by 166 ICU physicians (21.8%) from 64 Dutch hospitals (71.1% of the total of 90 Dutch hospitals). RESULTS: The interviews resulted in 66 barriers and facilitators related to: the intervention (e.g., feasibility); the professional (e.g., attitude towards checklists); social factors (e.g., presence or absence of a culture of feedback); and the organisation (e.g., financial resources). A facilitator considered important by ICU physicians was a checklist to structure discharge communication (92.2%). Barriers deemed important were lack of a culture of feedback (55.4%), an absence of discharge criteria (23.5%), and an overestimation of the capabilities of general wards to care for complex patients by ICU physicians (74.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the barriers and facilitators found in this study, improving handover communication, formulating specific discharge criteria, stimulating a culture of feedback, and preventing overestimation of the general ward are important to effectively improve the ICU discharge process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12913-017-2139-x

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Sluisveld, N., Oerlemans, A., Westert, G., van der Hoeven, J. G., Wollersheim, H., & Zegers, M.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2017-04-04
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
251-251
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2604398369
Cited by
61
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
ZonMw (171203006, 170996006)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
intensive care unit discharge, handoff communication, barriers and facilitators, ICU readmission, discharge checklist, discharge criteria, ICU physicians, general ward care, patient safety
MeSH terms
Adult, Critical Care, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Patient Discharge, Patients' Rooms, Surveys and Questionnaires, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, Checklist, Quality Improvement, Patient Safety, Patient Handoff

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review