Christopher J Smith1, Denise H Britigan2, Elizabeth Lyden3, Nathan Anderson4, Ted J Welniak5, Michael C Wadman6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska. 2. Department of Health Promotion, Social, and Behavioral Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Nebraska. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, Omaha, Nebraska. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York. 6. University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Medicine and Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) to inpatient physician handoffs are subject to complex challenges. We assessed physicians' perceptions of the ED admission handoff process and identified potential barriers to safe patient care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey at a 627-bed tertiary care academic medical center. Eligible participants included all resident, fellow, and faculty physicians directly involved in admission handoffs from emergency medicine (EM) and 5 medical admitting services. The survey addressed communication quality, clinical information, interpersonal perceptions, assignment of responsibilities, organizational factors, and patient safety. Participants reported their responses via a 5-point Likert scale and an open-ended description of handoff-related adverse events. RESULTS: Response rates were 63% for admitting (94/150) and 86% for EM physicians (32/37). Compared to EM respondents, admitting physicians reported that vital clinical information was communicated less frequently for all 8 content areas (P < 0.001). Ninety-four percent of EM physicians felt defensive at least "sometimes." Twenty-nine percent of all respondents reported handoff-related adverse events, most frequently related to ineffective communication. Sequential handoffs were common for both EM and admitting services, with 78% of physicians reporting they negatively impacted patient care. CONCLUSION: Physicians reported that patient safety was often at risk during the ED admission handoff process. Admitting and EM physicians had divergent perceptions regarding handoff communication, and sequential handoffs were common. Further research is needed to better understand this complex process and to investigate strategies for improvement.
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) to inpatient physician handoffs are subject to complex challenges. We assessed physicians' perceptions of the ED admission handoff process and identified potential barriers to safe patient care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey at a 627-bed tertiary care academic medical center. Eligible participants included all resident, fellow, and faculty physicians directly involved in admission handoffs from emergency medicine (EM) and 5 medical admitting services. The survey addressed communication quality, clinical information, interpersonal perceptions, assignment of responsibilities, organizational factors, and patient safety. Participants reported their responses via a 5-point Likert scale and an open-ended description of handoff-related adverse events. RESULTS: Response rates were 63% for admitting (94/150) and 86% for EM physicians (32/37). Compared to EM respondents, admitting physicians reported that vital clinical information was communicated less frequently for all 8 content areas (P < 0.001). Ninety-four percent of EM physicians felt defensive at least "sometimes." Twenty-nine percent of all respondents reported handoff-related adverse events, most frequently related to ineffective communication. Sequential handoffs were common for both EM and admitting services, with 78% of physicians reporting they negatively impacted patient care. CONCLUSION: Physicians reported that patient safety was often at risk during the ED admission handoff process. Admitting and EM physicians had divergent perceptions regarding handoff communication, and sequential handoffs were common. Further research is needed to better understand this complex process and to investigate strategies for improvement.
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: Alisa Khan; Stephannie L Furtak; Patrice Melvin; Jayne E Rogers; Mark A Schuster; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Emily S Wang; Sadie Trammell Velásquez; Christopher J Smith; Tabatha H Matthias; David Schmit; Sherwin Hsu; Luci K Leykum Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Marissa A Hendrickson; Emma N Schempf; Ronald A Furnival; Jordan Marmet; Scott A Lunos; Abraham K Jacob Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2019-04-16
Authors: Sangil Lee; Jaime Jordan; H Gene Hern; Chad Kessler; Susan Promes; Sarah Krzyzaniak; Fiona Gallahue; Ted Stettner; Jeffrey Druck Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2016-11-08
Authors: Christopher J Smith; Russell J Buzalko; Nathan Anderson; Joel Michalski; Jordan Warchol; Stephen Ducey; Chad E Branecki Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2018-02-08
Authors: Melissa Sydow Chladek; Cara Doughty; Binita Patel; Kyetta Alade; Marideth Rus; Joan Shook; Kim LIttle-Weinert Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2021-07