Electronic ArticleComparative evaluation of the content and structure of communication using two handoff tools: Implications for patient safety☆,☆☆,★,★★
Section snippets
Background and significance
Patient handoffs refer to the transfer of care services between providers during care transitions [1], [2], [3]. Although handoffs are key to maintaining continuity of care [4], they are considered a threat to patient safety due to the inherent breakdowns and errors in their execution. Earlier reports have suggested that handoff breakdowns contribute to nearly 35% of medical errors and adverse events [5]. These errors arise as a result of a variety of communication challenges caused by
Method
This study was part of a larger study involving the evaluation of handoffs in critical care settings. This article focuses on the comparative evaluation of 2 handoff tools: SOAP and HAND-IT.
Results
We report on the differences in the nature and patterns of communication behavior using SOAP and HAND-IT. We report on 4 attributes: communication interactivity, measured by the type/distribution of CEs; communication optimality, measured by the type of CEs (ideal vs nonideal); communication breakdowns, measured by the number of missed, incorrect, or irrelevant information from sender and team and; communication support, measured by the probability of “reject” and “request” sequences of CEs.
Discussion
Based on a comparative evaluation of the communication behavior between handoff tools, we found that an indigenously developed system-based handoff tool, HAND-IT, was characterized by greater communication interactivity, greater communication optimality, fewer communication breakdowns, and greater communication support. Furthermore, we found that the communication breakdowns with HAND-IT were only marginally related to the diagnostic, treatment, or management aspects of patient care. Based on
Conclusion
Our results suggest that HAND-IT supports a holistic and comprehensive head-to-toe, evidence-based assessment of a critical care patient. Such an information framework for patient data organization and documentation supported consistent, systematic, and streamlined communication with fewer breakdowns, potentially leading to better continuity and coordination of care. Although further longitudinal evaluation and evaluation in other settings are necessary for establishing the long-term viability
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the clinicians who participated in this study. Special thanks to 4 anonymous reviewers who provided valuable insights that has greatly improved this article.
References (58)
- et al.
Can technology improve intershift report? What the research reveals
J Prof Nurs
(2006) - et al.
Exploring emergency physician-hospitalist handoff interactions: development of the handoff communication assessment
Ann Emerg Med
(2010) - et al.
Evaluation of an asynchronous physician voicemail sign-out for emergency department admissions
Ann Emerg Med
(2009) - et al.
Handoffs in care—can we make them safer?
Pediatr Clin N Am
(2006) Improving patient safety by implementing a standardized and consistent approach to hand-off communication
J Perianesth Nurs
(2007)- et al.
National patient safety goals. A model for building a standardized hand-off protocol
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
(2006) - et al.
SBAR: a shared mental model for improving communication between clinicians
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
(2006) - et al.
Impact of a new electronic handover system in surgery
Int J Surg
(2011) - et al.
Simple standardized patient handoff system that increases accuracy and completeness
J Surg Educ
(2008) - et al.
A randomized, controlled trial evaluating the impact of a computerized rounding and sign-out system on continuity of care and resident work hours
J Am Coll Surg
(2005)
Evaluation of a physician informatics tool to improve patient handoffs
J Am Med Inform Assoc
Bridging gaps in handoffs: a continuity of care approach
J Biomed Inform
Evaluating and improving the handoff process
J Emerg Nurs
Patient handoffs: standardized and reliable tools remain elusive
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
An interface-driven analysis of user interactions with an electronic health records system
J Am Med Inform Assoc
Representations in distributed cognitive tasks
Cogn Sci
The published literature on handoffs in hospitals: deficiencies identified in an extensive review
Qual Saf Health Care
Residents' and attending physicians' handoffs: a systematic review of the literature
Acad Med
National patient safety goals
Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century
Communicating in the “gray zone”: perceptions about emergency physician-hospitalist handoffs and patient safety
Acad Emerg Med
Communication failures in patient sign-out and suggestions for improvement: a critical incident analysis
Qual Saf Health
Transfers of patient care between house staff on internal medicine wards: a national survey
Arch Intern Med
Nurses' information management and use of electronic tools during acute care handoffs
West J Nurs Res
Handover patterns: an observational study of critical care physicians
BMC Health Serv Res
Medical records that guide and teach
N Engl J Med
Implementing handoff communication
J Nurses Staff Dev
Shift report redesign. A Midwest medical center uses server-based phone technology to streamline shift reporting
Health Manag Technol
The Bermuda Triangle healthcare. An Illinois healthcare system closes the gaps in patient handoff communication
Health Manag Technol
Cited by (45)
Effectiveness of handover practices between emergency department and intensive care unit nurses
2023, African Journal of Emergency MedicineInforming the standardising of care for prolonged stay patients in the intensive care unit: A scoping review of quality improvement tools
2022, Intensive and Critical Care NursingCitation Excerpt :Only four (4 %) studies reported on tools were developed with patients or family members involved in their design (Au et al., 2021; Bannon et al., 2018; Dalal et al., 2016; Lip et al., 2021). Only nine (11 %) studies reported tools to have undergone formal feasibility testing (Abraham et al., 2012; Abraham et al., 2014; Abraham et al., 2016; Barcellos and Chatkin, 2020; Chen et al., 2021b; Liu et al., 2016; Nelson et al., 2006; Pronovost et al., 2003; Spooner et al., 2018b) (Table 3). Studies reported various strategies for tool implementation but most frequently education, including in-person group didactic or bedside teaching (n = 58, 60 %), and written or online educational materials (n = 37, 39 %).
Improving Handoff by Deliberate Cognitive Processing: Results from a Randomized Controlled Experimental Study
2021, Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient SafetyHumanizing Intensive Care: From Theory to Practice
2020, Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :The use of tools for structuring communication or briefings contributes to multidisciplinary participation and makes processes more effective and safer. These are our keys for improving communication.33 The cohesion of teams may be stimulated by support strategies and the acquisition of nontechnical skills (human tools) that minimize the conflicts related to communication problems.
A graph-based approach for characterizing resident and nurse handoff conversations
2019, Journal of Biomedical InformaticsHUMANIZATION OF INTENSIVE CARE
2019, Revista Medica Clinica Las Condes
- ☆
This research was conducted at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX.
- ☆☆
Contribution: JA conceived the study and collected the data. JA coded all transcripts, whereas TK coded 25% of the transcripts for reliability analysis. JA and TK performed all qualitative and quantitative analysis. All authors participated in the interpretation of data, helped to draft the article or revise it critically for important intellectual content, and gave final approval of the version to be published.
- ★
The authors were supported by a grant from the James S. McDonnell Foundation on Cognitive Complexity and Error in Critical Care (grant 220020152 to Vimla L. Patel).
- ★★
Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: all authors were supported by a funding from the James S. McDonnell Foundation; no financial relationships with any other organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.