BACKGROUND: The increasing fragmentation of healthcare has resulted in more patient handoffs. Many professional groups, including the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education and the Society of Hospital Medicine, have made recommendations for safe and effective handoffs. Despite the two-way nature of handoff communication, the focus of these efforts has largely been on the person giving information. OBJECTIVE: To observe and characterise the listening behaviours of handoff receivers during hospitalist handoffs. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of shift change and service change handoffs on a non-teaching hospitalist service at a single academic tertiary care institution. MEASUREMENTS: The 'HEAR Checklist', a novel tool created based on review of effective listening behaviours, was used by third party observers to characterise active and passive listening behaviours and interruptions during handoffs. RESULTS: In 48 handoffs (25 shift change, 23 service change), active listening behaviours (eg, read-back (17%), note-taking (23%) and reading own copy of the written signout (27%)) occurred less frequently than passive listening behaviours (eg, affirmatory statements (56%) nodding (50%) and eye contact (58%)) (p<0.01). Read-back occurred only eight times (17%). In 11 handoffs (23%) receivers took notes. Almost all (98%) handoffs were interrupted at least once, most often by side conversations, pagers going off, or clinicians arriving. Handoffs with more patients, such as service change, were associated with more interruptions (r=0.46, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Using the 'HEAR Checklist', we can characterise hospitalist handoff listening behaviours. While passive listening behaviours are common, active listening behaviours that promote memory retention are rare. Handoffs are often interrupted, most commonly by side conversations. Future handoff improvement efforts should focus on augmenting listening and minimising interruptions.
BACKGROUND: The increasing fragmentation of healthcare has resulted in more patient handoffs. Many professional groups, including the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education and the Society of Hospital Medicine, have made recommendations for safe and effective handoffs. Despite the two-way nature of handoff communication, the focus of these efforts has largely been on the person giving information. OBJECTIVE: To observe and characterise the listening behaviours of handoff receivers during hospitalist handoffs. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of shift change and service change handoffs on a non-teaching hospitalist service at a single academic tertiary care institution. MEASUREMENTS: The 'HEAR Checklist', a novel tool created based on review of effective listening behaviours, was used by third party observers to characterise active and passive listening behaviours and interruptions during handoffs. RESULTS: In 48 handoffs (25 shift change, 23 service change), active listening behaviours (eg, read-back (17%), note-taking (23%) and reading own copy of the written signout (27%)) occurred less frequently than passive listening behaviours (eg, affirmatory statements (56%) nodding (50%) and eye contact (58%)) (p<0.01). Read-back occurred only eight times (17%). In 11 handoffs (23%) receivers took notes. Almost all (98%) handoffs were interrupted at least once, most often by side conversations, pagers going off, or clinicians arriving. Handoffs with more patients, such as service change, were associated with more interruptions (r=0.46, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Using the 'HEAR Checklist', we can characterise hospitalist handoff listening behaviours. While passive listening behaviours are common, active listening behaviours that promote memory retention are rare. Handoffs are often interrupted, most commonly by side conversations. Future handoff improvement efforts should focus on augmenting listening and minimising interruptions.
Authors: Daniel D Dressler; Michael J Pistoria; Tina L Budnitz; Sylvia C W McKean; Alpesh N Amin Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Mark E Barry; Beth R Hochman; Meghan B Lane-Fall; Denise Zappile; Daniel N Holena; Brian P Smith; Lewis J Kaplan; Ann Huffenberger; Patrick M Reilly; Jose L Pascual Journal: Acad Med Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: John T Ratelle; Diana J Kelm; Andrew J Halvorsen; Colin P West; Amy S Oxentenko Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Leora I Horwitz; David Rand; Paul Staisiunas; Peter H Van Ness; Katy L B Araujo; Stacy S Banerjee; Jeanne M Farnan; Vineet M Arora Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Beth R Hochman; Mark E Barry; Meghan B Lane-Fall; Steven R Allen; Daniel N Holena; Brian P Smith; Lewis J Kaplan; Jose L Pascual Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2016-07-09 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Sean Gaffney; Jeanne M Farnan; Kristen Hirsch; Michael McGinty; Vineet M Arora Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Vineet M Arora; Saba Berhie; Leora I Horwitz; Mark Saathoff; Paul Staisiunas; Jeanne M Farnan Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 2.960