Dana J Herrigel1, Madeline Carroll2, Christine Fanning2, Michael B Steinberg2, Amay Parikh3, Michael Usher4. 1. Division of Education and General Internal Medicine, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 3. Division of Critical Care and Nephrology, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interhospital transfer is an understudied area within transitions of care. The process by which hospitals accept and transfer patients is not well described. National trends and best practices are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographics of large transfer centers, to identify common handoff practices, and to describe challenges and notable innovations involving the interhospital transfer handoff process. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 32 tertiary care centers in the United States was studied. Respondents were typically transfer center directors surveyed by phone. MAIN MEASURES: Data regarding transfer center demographics, handoff communication practices, electronic infrastructure, and data sharing were obtained. RESULTS: The median number of patients transferred each month per receiving institution was 700 (range, 250-2500); on average, 28% of these patients were transferred to an intensive care unit. Transfer protocols and practices varied by institution. Transfer center coordinators typically had a medical background (78%), and critical care-trained registered nurse was the most prevalent (38%). Common practices included: mandatory recorded 3-way physician-to-physician conversation (84%) and mandatory clinical status updates prior to patient arrival (81%). However, the timeline of clinical status updates was variable. Less frequent transfer practices included: electronic medical record (EMR) cross-talk availability and utilization (23%), real-time transfer center documentation accessibility in the EMR (32%), and referring center clinical documentation available prior to transport (29%). A number of innovative strategies to address challenges involving interhospital handoffs are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Interhospital transfer practices vary widely amongst tertiary care centers. Practices that lead to improved patient handoffs and reduced medical errors need additional prospective evaluation. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:413-417.
BACKGROUND: Interhospital transfer is an understudied area within transitions of care. The process by which hospitals accept and transfer patients is not well described. National trends and best practices are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographics of large transfer centers, to identify common handoff practices, and to describe challenges and notable innovations involving the interhospital transfer handoff process. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 32 tertiary care centers in the United States was studied. Respondents were typically transfer center directors surveyed by phone. MAIN MEASURES: Data regarding transfer center demographics, handoff communication practices, electronic infrastructure, and data sharing were obtained. RESULTS: The median number of patients transferred each month per receiving institution was 700 (range, 250-2500); on average, 28% of these patients were transferred to an intensive care unit. Transfer protocols and practices varied by institution. Transfer center coordinators typically had a medical background (78%), and critical care-trained registered nurse was the most prevalent (38%). Common practices included: mandatory recorded 3-way physician-to-physician conversation (84%) and mandatory clinical status updates prior to patient arrival (81%). However, the timeline of clinical status updates was variable. Less frequent transfer practices included: electronic medical record (EMR) cross-talk availability and utilization (23%), real-time transfer center documentation accessibility in the EMR (32%), and referring center clinical documentation available prior to transport (29%). A number of innovative strategies to address challenges involving interhospital handoffs are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Interhospital transfer practices vary widely amongst tertiary care centers. Practices that lead to improved patient handoffs and reduced medical errors need additional prospective evaluation. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:413-417.
Authors: Kamal Nagpal; May Abboudi; Lukas Fischler; Tanja Schmidt; Amit Vats; Chhavi Manchanda; Nick Sevdalis; Daniel Scheidegger; Charles Vincent; Krishna Moorthy Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Howard Charles Malpass; Kyle B Enfield; Jessica Keim-Malpass; George M Verghese Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Amy J Starmer; Nancy D Spector; Rajendu Srivastava; Daniel C West; Glenn Rosenbluth; April D Allen; Elizabeth L Noble; Lisa L Tse; Anuj K Dalal; Carol A Keohane; Stuart R Lipsitz; Jeffrey M Rothschild; Matthew F Wien; Catherine S Yoon; Katherine R Zigmont; Karen M Wilson; Jennifer K O'Toole; Lauren G Solan; Megan Aylor; Zia Bismilla; Maitreya Coffey; Sanjay Mahant; Rebecca L Blankenburg; Lauren A Destino; Jennifer L Everhart; Shilpa J Patel; James F Bale; Jaime B Spackman; Adam T Stevenson; Sharon Calaman; F Sessions Cole; Dorene F Balmer; Jennifer H Hepps; Joseph O Lopreiato; Clifton E Yu; Theodore C Sectish; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph R Keebler; Aaron S Dietz; Elizabeth H Lazzara; Lauren E Benishek; Sandra A Almeida; Phyllis A Toor; Heidi B King; Eduardo Salas Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Amy J Starmer; Jennifer K O'Toole; Glenn Rosenbluth; Sharon Calaman; Dorene Balmer; Daniel C West; James F Bale; Clifton E Yu; Elizabeth L Noble; Lisa L Tse; Rajendu Srivastava; Christopher P Landrigan; Theodore C Sectish; Nancy D Spector Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Jason Wagner; Nicole B Gabler; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Sydney E S Brown; Brian L Strom; Scott D Halpern Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Amy J Starmer; Theodore C Sectish; Dennis W Simon; Carol Keohane; Maireade E McSweeney; Erica Y Chung; Catherine S Yoon; Stuart R Lipsitz; Ari J Wassner; Marvin B Harper; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jack J M Ligtenberg; L Gert Arnold; Ymkje Stienstra; Tjip S van der Werf; John H J M Meertens; Jaap E Tulleken; Jan G Zijlstra Journal: Crit Care Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Michael Usher; Nishant Sahni; Dana Herrigel; Gyorgy Simon; Genevieve B Melton; Anne Joseph; Andrew Olson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Marc Heincelman; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Elizabeth Kirkland; Samuel O Schumann; Andrew Schreiner; Phillip Warr; Jingwen Zhang; Patrick D Mauldin; William P Moran; Don C Rockey Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: James A Hall; Shamyal H Khan; Courtney Shaver; Kendall Pye; Ismail Salejee; Thomas Delmas; Badri Giri; Heath D White; Curtis Mirkes Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2019-07-30
Authors: Jefferson M Jones; Holenarasipur R Vikram; Michael Lauzardo; Amy Hill; Jeffrey Jones; Clinton Haley; Barbara Seaworth; Sara Oldham; Marcus Brown; Felipe Gutierrez; Sridhar V Basavaraju Journal: Transpl Infect Dis Date: 2020-07-08