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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Critical care medicine 2016-04, Vol.44 (4), p.690-698 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 698 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 690 |
container_title | Critical care medicine |
container_volume | 44 |
creator | Lane-Fall, Meghan B Collard, Meredith L Turnbull, Alison E Halpern, Scott D Shea, Judy A |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001470 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4792768</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1773807160</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3600-a27c64dd8bc1136cf61792163e9ceeaa6aaf583bba8e220804c100b6c08e8d183</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EokvLP0DIRy4p4zhrOxyQVhGlK5UP9UPiZjnOpGtw4tZ2tuq_J6stVeHAXOYwzzwz0kvIGwbHDGr5vmm-HMOTYpWEZ2TBlhwKKGv-nCwAaih4VfMD8iqlnztmKflLclCKpVKqlAvyY91c0VXOOHZuvKanZuxC39Pv0djsLKYP9BzT5HOiJzEM1NCvJrswGk8vprjFexp6urKmw8FZuh5nT3Jbl3I6Ii964xO-fuiH5Ork02VzWpx9-7xuVmeF5QKgMKW0ouo61VrGuLC9YLIumeBYW0RjhDH9UvG2NQrLEhRUlgG0woJC1THFD8nHvfdmagfsLI45Gq9vohtMvNfBOP33ZHQbfR22uprvSLETvHsQxHA7Ycp6cMmi92bEMCXNpOQKJBMwo9UetTGkFLF_PMNA70LRcyj631DmtbdPX3xc-pPCDKg9cBd8xph--ekOo96g8Xnzf_dvll6ZbQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1773807160</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>ICU Attending Handoff Practices: Results From a National Survey of Academic Intensivists</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Lane-Fall, Meghan B ; Collard, Meredith L ; Turnbull, Alison E ; Halpern, Scott D ; Shea, Judy A</creator><creatorcontrib>Lane-Fall, Meghan B ; Collard, Meredith L ; Turnbull, Alison E ; Halpern, Scott D ; Shea, Judy A</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-3493</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1530-0293</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001470</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26588827</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Copyright by by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</publisher><subject>Accreditation ; Communication ; Critical Care ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Intensive Care Units - organization & administration ; Internship and Residency ; Medical Staff, Hospital ; Patient Handoff - standards ; Patient Safety - standards ; Process Assessment, Health Care ; United States ; Workforce</subject><ispartof>Critical care medicine, 2016-04, Vol.44 (4), p.690-698</ispartof><rights>Copyright © by 2016 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26588827$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lane-Fall, Meghan B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collard, Meredith L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turnbull, Alison E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halpern, Scott D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shea, Judy A</creatorcontrib><title>ICU Attending Handoff Practices: Results From a National Survey of Academic Intensivists</title><title>Critical care medicine</title><addtitle>Crit Care Med</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Accreditation</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Critical Care</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intensive Care Units - organization & administration</subject><subject>Internship and Residency</subject><subject>Medical Staff, Hospital</subject><subject>Patient Handoff - standards</subject><subject>Patient Safety - standards</subject><subject>Process Assessment, Health Care</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Workforce</subject><issn>0090-3493</issn><issn>1530-0293</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EokvLP0DIRy4p4zhrOxyQVhGlK5UP9UPiZjnOpGtw4tZ2tuq_J6stVeHAXOYwzzwz0kvIGwbHDGr5vmm-HMOTYpWEZ2TBlhwKKGv-nCwAaih4VfMD8iqlnztmKflLclCKpVKqlAvyY91c0VXOOHZuvKanZuxC39Pv0djsLKYP9BzT5HOiJzEM1NCvJrswGk8vprjFexp6urKmw8FZuh5nT3Jbl3I6Ii964xO-fuiH5Ork02VzWpx9-7xuVmeF5QKgMKW0ouo61VrGuLC9YLIumeBYW0RjhDH9UvG2NQrLEhRUlgG0woJC1THFD8nHvfdmagfsLI45Gq9vohtMvNfBOP33ZHQbfR22uprvSLETvHsQxHA7Ycp6cMmi92bEMCXNpOQKJBMwo9UetTGkFLF_PMNA70LRcyj631DmtbdPX3xc-pPCDKg9cBd8xph--ekOo96g8Xnzf_dvll6ZbQ</recordid><startdate>201604</startdate><enddate>201604</enddate><creator>Lane-Fall, Meghan B</creator><creator>Collard, Meredith L</creator><creator>Turnbull, Alison E</creator><creator>Halpern, Scott D</creator><creator>Shea, Judy A</creator><general>Copyright by by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201604</creationdate><title>ICU Attending Handoff Practices: Results From a National Survey of Academic Intensivists</title><author>Lane-Fall, Meghan B ; Collard, Meredith L ; Turnbull, Alison E ; Halpern, Scott D ; Shea, Judy A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3600-a27c64dd8bc1136cf61792163e9ceeaa6aaf583bba8e220804c100b6c08e8d183</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Accreditation</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Critical Care</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intensive Care Units - organization & administration</topic><topic>Internship and Residency</topic><topic>Medical Staff, Hospital</topic><topic>Patient Handoff - standards</topic><topic>Patient Safety - standards</topic><topic>Process Assessment, Health Care</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Workforce</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lane-Fall, Meghan B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collard, Meredith L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turnbull, Alison E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halpern, Scott D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shea, Judy A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Critical care medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lane-Fall, Meghan B</au><au>Collard, Meredith L</au><au>Turnbull, Alison E</au><au>Halpern, Scott D</au><au>Shea, Judy A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>ICU Attending Handoff Practices: Results From a National Survey of Academic Intensivists</atitle><jtitle>Critical care medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Crit Care Med</addtitle><date>2016-04</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>690</spage><epage>698</epage><pages>690-698</pages><issn>0090-3493</issn><eissn>1530-0293</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Copyright by by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</pub><pmid>26588827</pmid><doi>10.1097/CCM.0000000000001470</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0090-3493 |
ispartof | Critical care medicine, 2016-04, Vol.44 (4), p.690-698 |
issn | 0090-3493 1530-0293 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4792768 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Accreditation Communication Critical Care Cross-Sectional Studies Female Humans Intensive Care Units - organization & administration Internship and Residency Medical Staff, Hospital Patient Handoff - standards Patient Safety - standards Process Assessment, Health Care United States Workforce |
title | ICU Attending Handoff Practices: Results From a National Survey of Academic Intensivists |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T04%3A24%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=ICU%20Attending%20Handoff%20Practices:%20Results%20From%20a%20National%20Survey%20of%20Academic%20Intensivists&rft.jtitle=Critical%20care%20medicine&rft.au=Lane-Fall,%20Meghan%20B&rft.date=2016-04&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=690&rft.epage=698&rft.pages=690-698&rft.issn=0090-3493&rft.eissn=1530-0293&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/CCM.0000000000001470&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1773807160%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1773807160&rft_id=info:pmid/26588827&rfr_iscdi=true |