TY - JOUR
T1 - Characterising ICU-ward handoffs at three academic medical centres
T2 - Process and perceptions
AU - Santhosh, Lekshmi
AU - Lyons, Patrick G.
AU - Rojas, Juan C.
AU - Ciesielski, Thomas M.
AU - Beach, Shire
AU - Farnan, Jeanne M.
AU - Arora, Vineet
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019.
PY - 2019/8/1
Y1 - 2019/8/1
N2 - Background There is limited literature about physician handoffs between the intensive care unit (ICU) and the ward, and best practices have not been described. These patients are uniquely vulnerable given their medical complexity, diagnostic uncertainty and reduced monitoring intensity. We aimed to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU-ward handoffs across three teaching hospitals using multimodal methods: by identifying the handoff components involved in communication failures and describing common processes of patient transfer. Methods We conducted a study at three academic medical centres using two methods to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU-ward transfers: (1) an anonymous resident survey characterising handoff communication during ICU-ward transfer, and (2) comparison of process maps to identify similarities and differences between ICU-ward transfer processes across the three hospitals. Results Of the 295 internal medicine residents approached, 175 (59%) completed the survey. 87% of the respondents recalled at least one adverse event related to communication failure during ICU-ward transfer. 95% agreed that a well-structured handoff template would improve ICU-ward transfer. Rehabilitation needs, intravenous access/hardware and risk assessments for readmission to the ICU were the most frequently omitted or incorrectly communicated components of handoff notes. More than 60% of the respondents reported that notes omitted or miscommunicated pending results, active subspecialty consultants, nutrition and intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and healthcare decision-maker information at least twice per month. Despite variable process across the three sites, all process maps demonstrated flaws and potential for harm in critical steps of the ICU-ward transition. Conclusion In this multisite study, despite significant process variation across sites, almost all resident physicians recalled an adverse event related to the ICU-ward handoff. Future work is needed to determine best practices for ICU-ward handoffs at academic medical centres.
AB - Background There is limited literature about physician handoffs between the intensive care unit (ICU) and the ward, and best practices have not been described. These patients are uniquely vulnerable given their medical complexity, diagnostic uncertainty and reduced monitoring intensity. We aimed to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU-ward handoffs across three teaching hospitals using multimodal methods: by identifying the handoff components involved in communication failures and describing common processes of patient transfer. Methods We conducted a study at three academic medical centres using two methods to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU-ward transfers: (1) an anonymous resident survey characterising handoff communication during ICU-ward transfer, and (2) comparison of process maps to identify similarities and differences between ICU-ward transfer processes across the three hospitals. Results Of the 295 internal medicine residents approached, 175 (59%) completed the survey. 87% of the respondents recalled at least one adverse event related to communication failure during ICU-ward transfer. 95% agreed that a well-structured handoff template would improve ICU-ward transfer. Rehabilitation needs, intravenous access/hardware and risk assessments for readmission to the ICU were the most frequently omitted or incorrectly communicated components of handoff notes. More than 60% of the respondents reported that notes omitted or miscommunicated pending results, active subspecialty consultants, nutrition and intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and healthcare decision-maker information at least twice per month. Despite variable process across the three sites, all process maps demonstrated flaws and potential for harm in critical steps of the ICU-ward transition. Conclusion In this multisite study, despite significant process variation across sites, almost all resident physicians recalled an adverse event related to the ICU-ward handoff. Future work is needed to determine best practices for ICU-ward handoffs at academic medical centres.
KW - chart review methodologies
KW - graduate medical education
KW - medical education
KW - process mapping
KW - transitions in care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059886104&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008328
DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008328
M3 - Article
C2 - 30636201
AN - SCOPUS:85059886104
SN - 2044-5415
VL - 28
SP - 627
EP - 634
JO - BMJ Quality and Safety
JF - BMJ Quality and Safety
IS - 8
ER -