Emily S Patterson1, Robert L Wears. 1. Health Information Management and Systems Division, Ohio State University Medical Center, School of Allied Medical Professions, Columbus, Ohio, USA. patterson.150@osu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous quality improvement projects on patient handoffs have been conducted, yet standardized, reliable measurement tools remain elusive. HANDOFF QUALITY MEASURES CLASSIFIED BY PRIMARY HANDOFF PURPOSE: The literature review, which yielded approximately 400 relevant articles, led to the identification of seven primary functions for patient handoffs, each of which implies different interventions to improve them: (1) Framing 1, information processing is the most prevalent in the patient handoff literature; (2) Framing 2, stereotypical narratives, emphasizes highlighting deviations from typical narratives, such as a patient who is allergic to the preferred antibiotic for treating his or her diagnosed condition; (3) Framing 3, resilience, takes advantage of the transparency of the thought processes revealed through the conversation to identify erroneous assumptions and actions; (4) Framing 4, accountability, emphasizes the transfer of responsibility and authority; (5) Framing 5, social interaction, considers the perspective of the participants in the exchange; (6) Framing 6, distributed cognition, addresses how a transfer to a new care provider affects a network of specialized practitioners performing dedicated roles who may or may not be transitioning at the same time; (7) Framing 7, cultural norms, relates to how group values (instantiated as social norms for acceptable behavior) in an organization or suborganization are negotiated and maintained over time. DISCUSSION: The diversity of handoff measurement approaches suggests a lack of consensus about the primary purpose of a handoff, as well as about what interventions are most promising for improving handoff processes. Recognizing that there are simultaneously multiple purposes for handoffs is a critical precursor to quality improvement.
BACKGROUND: Numerous quality improvement projects on patient handoffs have been conducted, yet standardized, reliable measurement tools remain elusive. HANDOFF QUALITY MEASURES CLASSIFIED BY PRIMARY HANDOFF PURPOSE: The literature review, which yielded approximately 400 relevant articles, led to the identification of seven primary functions for patient handoffs, each of which implies different interventions to improve them: (1) Framing 1, information processing is the most prevalent in the patient handoff literature; (2) Framing 2, stereotypical narratives, emphasizes highlighting deviations from typical narratives, such as a patient who is allergic to the preferred antibiotic for treating his or her diagnosed condition; (3) Framing 3, resilience, takes advantage of the transparency of the thought processes revealed through the conversation to identify erroneous assumptions and actions; (4) Framing 4, accountability, emphasizes the transfer of responsibility and authority; (5) Framing 5, social interaction, considers the perspective of the participants in the exchange; (6) Framing 6, distributed cognition, addresses how a transfer to a new care provider affects a network of specialized practitioners performing dedicated roles who may or may not be transitioning at the same time; (7) Framing 7, cultural norms, relates to how group values (instantiated as social norms for acceptable behavior) in an organization or suborganization are negotiated and maintained over time. DISCUSSION: The diversity of handoff measurement approaches suggests a lack of consensus about the primary purpose of a handoff, as well as about what interventions are most promising for improving handoff processes. Recognizing that there are simultaneously multiple purposes for handoffs is a critical precursor to quality improvement.
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: Jonathan A Duong; Trevor P Jensen; Sasha Morduchowicz; Michelle Mourad; James D Harrison; Sumant R Ranji Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kamna S Balhara; Susan M Peterson; Mohamed Moheb Elabd; Linda Regan; Xavier Anton; Basil Ali Al-Natour; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; James Scheulen; Sarah A Stewart de Ramirez Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Nicholas A Rattray; Mindy E Flanagan; Laura G Militello; Paul Barach; Zamal Franks; Patricia Ebright; Shakaib U Rehman; Howard S Gordon; Richard M Frankel Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elizabeth A Greenstein; Vineet M Arora; Paul G Staisiunas; Stacy S Banerjee; Jeanne M Farnan Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 7.035