L I Horwitz1, T Moin, H M Krumholz, L Wang, E H Bradley. 1. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut 06519, USA. leora.horwitz@yale.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterise and assess sign-out practices among internal medicine house staff, and to identify contributing factors to sign-out quality. DESIGN: Prospective audiotape study. SETTING: Medical wards of an acute teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eight internal medicine house staff teams. MEASUREMENTS: Quantitative and qualitative assessments of sign-out content, clarity of language, environment, and factors affecting quality and comprehensiveness of oral sign-out. RESULTS: Sign-out sessions (n = 88) contained 503 patient sign-outs. Complete written sign-outs accompanying 50/88 sign-out sessions (57%) were collected. The median duration of sign-out was 35 s (IQR 19-62) per patient. The combined oral and written sign-outs described clinical condition, hospital course and whether or not there was a task to be completed for 184/298 (62%) of patients. The least commonly conveyed was the patient's current clinical condition, described in 249/503 (50%) of oral sign-outs and 117/306 (38%) of written sign-outs. Most patient sign-outs (298/503, 59%) included no questions from the sign-out recipient (median 0, IQR 0-1). Five factors were associated with a higher rate of oral content inclusion: familiarity with the patient, sense of responsibility for the patient, only one sign-out per day, presence of a senior resident and a comprehensive written sign-out. Omissions and mischaracterisations of data were present in 22% of sign-outs repeated in a single day. CONCLUSIONS: Sign-outs are not uniformly comprehensive and include few questions. The findings suggest that several changes may be required to improve sign-out quality, including standardising key content, minimising sign-outs that do not involve the primary team, templating written sign-outs, emphasising the role of sign-out in maintaining patient safety and fostering a sense of direct responsibility for patients among covering staff.
OBJECTIVES: To characterise and assess sign-out practices among internal medicine house staff, and to identify contributing factors to sign-out quality. DESIGN: Prospective audiotape study. SETTING: Medical wards of an acute teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eight internal medicine house staff teams. MEASUREMENTS: Quantitative and qualitative assessments of sign-out content, clarity of language, environment, and factors affecting quality and comprehensiveness of oral sign-out. RESULTS: Sign-out sessions (n = 88) contained 503 patient sign-outs. Complete written sign-outs accompanying 50/88 sign-out sessions (57%) were collected. The median duration of sign-out was 35 s (IQR 19-62) per patient. The combined oral and written sign-outs described clinical condition, hospital course and whether or not there was a task to be completed for 184/298 (62%) of patients. The least commonly conveyed was the patient's current clinical condition, described in 249/503 (50%) of oral sign-outs and 117/306 (38%) of written sign-outs. Most patient sign-outs (298/503, 59%) included no questions from the sign-out recipient (median 0, IQR 0-1). Five factors were associated with a higher rate of oral content inclusion: familiarity with the patient, sense of responsibility for the patient, only one sign-out per day, presence of a senior resident and a comprehensive written sign-out. Omissions and mischaracterisations of data were present in 22% of sign-outs repeated in a single day. CONCLUSIONS: Sign-outs are not uniformly comprehensive and include few questions. The findings suggest that several changes may be required to improve sign-out quality, including standardising key content, minimising sign-outs that do not involve the primary team, templating written sign-outs, emphasising the role of sign-out in maintaining patient safety and fostering a sense of direct responsibility for patients among covering staff.
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Barrett T Kitch; Debra F Weinstein; Eric G Campbell; Matthew Hutter; Joel S Weissman Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005 Dec 12-26
Authors: Sarah A Collins; Lena Mamykina; Desmond Jordan; Dan M Stein; Alisabeth Shine; Paul Reyfman; David Kaufman Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Max V Wohlauer; Vineet M Arora; Leora I Horwitz; Ellen J Bass; Sean E Mahar; Ingrid Philibert Journal: Acad Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Jennifer N Hill; Sara M Locatelli; Barbara G Bokhour; Gemmae M Fix; Jeffrey Solomon; Nora Mueller; Sherri L LaVela Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2018-08-04
Authors: Leora I Horwitz; Vivek Parwani; Nidhi R Shah; Jeremiah D Schuur; Thom Meredith; Grace Y Jenq; Raghavendra G Kulkarni Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2009-03-12 Impact factor: 5.721