James B Reilly1, Leah M Marcotte, Jeffrey S Berns, Judy A Shea. 1. Renal-Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. James.Reilly@uphs.upenn.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis patients are vulnerable to adverse events, including those surrounding hospital discharge. Little is known about how dialysis-specific information is shared with outpatient dialysis clinics for discharged patients, and the applicability of existing models of handoff transitions is unknown. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were performed with 36 dialysis care physicians, nurses, and social workers in hospital and outpatient settings. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by trained coders. Intercoder reliability was measured by Cohen's kappa FINDINGS: Quality of communication and the actual process were highly variable. Good communication was described as timely, with standardized content, and coordinated between disciplines. A lack of standards, time/workload imbalance, incompatible electronic records between facilities, and unawareness of pending discharge plans were noted barriers to good communication. Poor or absent communication contributes to adverse events, including omission of antibiotics, mismanagement of congestive heart failure, readmissions, and loss of patient trust. Creating explicit standards for communication, fostering accountability, documenting receipt in the outpatient clinic, and continual feedback from outpatient to inpatient settings are methods to facilitate improvement and reduce preventable adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Standardizing the communication process between inpatient and outpatient dialysis units when patients are discharged from the hospital has potential to reduce adverse events related to poor communication and improve patient care during this transition. Interprofessional collaboration has potential to create robust solutions to this complex problem and foster a culture of multidisciplinary reflexivity.
BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis patients are vulnerable to adverse events, including those surrounding hospital discharge. Little is known about how dialysis-specific information is shared with outpatient dialysis clinics for discharged patients, and the applicability of existing models of handoff transitions is unknown. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were performed with 36 dialysis care physicians, nurses, and social workers in hospital and outpatient settings. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by trained coders. Intercoder reliability was measured by Cohen's kappa FINDINGS: Quality of communication and the actual process were highly variable. Good communication was described as timely, with standardized content, and coordinated between disciplines. A lack of standards, time/workload imbalance, incompatible electronic records between facilities, and unawareness of pending discharge plans were noted barriers to good communication. Poor or absent communication contributes to adverse events, including omission of antibiotics, mismanagement of congestive heart failure, readmissions, and loss of patient trust. Creating explicit standards for communication, fostering accountability, documenting receipt in the outpatient clinic, and continual feedback from outpatient to inpatient settings are methods to facilitate improvement and reduce preventable adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Standardizing the communication process between inpatient and outpatient dialysis units when patients are discharged from the hospital has potential to reduce adverse events related to poor communication and improve patient care during this transition. Interprofessional collaboration has potential to create robust solutions to this complex problem and foster a culture of multidisciplinary reflexivity.
Authors: LaTonya J Hickson; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Priya Ramar; Megan S Reinalda; Cynthia S Crowson; Amy W Williams; Robert C Albright; Macaulay A Onuigbo; Andrew D Rule; Nilay D Shah Journal: Nephron Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 2.847
Authors: Nabil Natafgi; Xi Zhu; Jure Baloh; Kelli Vellinga; Thomas Vaughn; Marcia M Ward Journal: J Nurs Care Qual Date: 2017 Jan/Mar Impact factor: 1.597
Authors: Wenbo Wu; Garrett W Gremel; Kevin He; Joseph M Messana; Ananda Sen; Jonathan H Segal; Claudia Dahlerus; Richard A Hirth; Jian Kang; Karen Wisniewski; Tammie Nahra; Robin Padilla; Lan Tong; Haoyu Gu; Xi Wang; Megan Slowey; Ashley Eckard; Xuemei Ding; Lisa Borowicz; Juan Du; Brandon Frye; John D Kalbfleisch Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2022-04-15
Authors: Lili Chan; Kinsuk Chauhan; Priti Poojary; Aparna Saha; Elizabeth Hammer; Joseph A Vassalotti; Lindsay Jubelt; Bart Ferket; Steven G Coca; Girish N Nadkarni Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Duc B Nguyen; Isaac See; Nicole Gualandi; Alicia Shugart; Christi Lines; Wendy Bamberg; Ghinwa Dumyati; Lee H Harrison; Lindsey Lesher; Joelle Nadle; Susan Petit; Susan M Ray; William Schaffner; John Townes; Levi Njord; Dawn Sievert; Nicola D Thompson; Priti R Patel Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Stavros Savvopoulos; Tara Sampalli; Ruth Harding; Gail Blackmore; Sandra Janes; Kothai Kumanan; Rick Gibson; Chris MacKnight Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2018 Mar-Apr
Authors: Ann E Vandenberg; Bernard G Jaar; Kyle P James; Janice Lea; Christopher O'Donnell; Tahsin Masud; Rich Mutell; Laura C Plantinga Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 3.298