ICU Attending Handoff Practices: Results From a National Survey of Academic Intensivists

OBJECTIVES:To characterize intensivist handoff practices and expectations and to explore perceptions of the patient safety implications of attending handoffs. DESIGN:Cross-sectional electronic survey administered in 2014. SETTING:One hundred sixty-nine U.S. hospitals with critical care training prog...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Critical care medicine 2016-04, Vol.44 (4), p.690-698
Hauptverfasser: Lane-Fall, Meghan B, Collard, Meredith L, Turnbull, Alison E, Halpern, Scott D, Shea, Judy A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:OBJECTIVES:To characterize intensivist handoff practices and expectations and to explore perceptions of the patient safety implications of attending handoffs. DESIGN:Cross-sectional electronic survey administered in 2014. SETTING:One hundred sixty-nine U.S. hospitals with critical care training programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. SUBJECTS:Academic intensivists were recruited via e-mail invitation from a database of 1,712 eligible academic intensivists. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Six hundred sixty-one intensivists completed the survey (completion rate, 38.6%). Responses were received from at least one individual at 147 of 169 unique hospitals (87.0%) represented in the study database. Five hundred seventy-three (87%) respondents reported participating in handoffs at the end of each ICU rotation. A variety of communication methods were used for end-of-rotation handoffs, including in-person discussion (92.9%), telephone calls (83.9%), e-mail messages (69.0%), computer-generated documents (64.6%), and text messages (23.6%). Mean satisfaction with current handoff process was rated as 68.4 on a scale from 0 to 100 (SD, 22.6). Respondents (55.4%) said that attending handoffs should be standardized, but only 13.3% (76/572) of those participating in end-of-rotation handoffs reported using a standardized process. Specific handoff topics, including active clinical issues and resuscitation status, were reportedly discussed less frequently than would be ideal (p < 0.001 for the difference between reported frequency and ideal frequency). In free-text comments, 76 respondents (11.5%) expressed skepticism that attending handoffs were necessary given the presence of residents and fellows and given a lack of agreement about necessary content. Two hundred respondents (30.8%) reported knowing of an adverse event (inappropriate treatment, cardiac arrest, and death) attributable to inadequate attending handoffs. CONCLUSIONS:ICU attending handoffs in the United States exhibit marked heterogeneity, and intensivists do not agree about the value of attending handoffs. In addition, some intensivists perceive a link between suboptimal attending handoffs, inappropriate treatment, and serious adverse events that warrants further study.
ISSN:0090-3493
1530-0293
DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001470