"Do You Know What I Know?": How Communication Norms and Recipient Design Shape the Content and Effectiveness of Patient Handoffs.
communication
patient safety
qualitative research
quality of care
resident handoffs
risk management
sociolinguistics
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
28
11
2017
accepted:
09
11
2018
revised:
30
05
2018
pubmed:
12
12
2018
medline:
20
6
2020
entrez:
12
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Poor communication during end-of-shift transfers of care (handoffs) is associated with safety risks and patient harm. Despite the common perception that handoffs are largely a one-way transfer of information, researchers have documented that they are complex interactions, guided by implicit social norms and mental frameworks. We investigated communication strategies that resident physicians report deploying to tailor information during face-to-face handoffs that are often based on their implicit inferences about the perceived information needs and potential harm to patients. We interviewed 35 residents in Medicine and Surgery wards at three VA Medical Centers (VAMCs). We conducted qualitative interviews using audio-recorded semi-structured cognitive task interviews. The effectiveness of handoff communication depends upon three factors: receiver characteristics, type of shift, and patient's condition and perceived acuity. Receiver characteristics, including subjective perceptions about an incoming resident's training or ability levels and their assumed preferences for information (e.g., detailed/comprehensive vs. minimal/"big picture"), influenced content shared during handoffs. Residents handing off to the night team provided more information about patients' medical histories and care plans than residents handing off to the day team, and higher patient acuity merited more detailed information and the medical service(s) involved dictated the types of information conveyed. We found that handoff communication involves a complex combination of socio-technical information where residents balance relational factors against content and risk. It is not a mechanistic process of merely transferring clinical data but rather is based on learned habits of communication that are context-sensitive and variable, what we refer to as "recipient design." Interventions should focus on raising awareness of times when information is omitted, customized, or expanded based on implicit judgments, the emerging threats such judgments pose to patient care and quality, and the competencies needed to be more explicit in handoff interactions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Poor communication during end-of-shift transfers of care (handoffs) is associated with safety risks and patient harm. Despite the common perception that handoffs are largely a one-way transfer of information, researchers have documented that they are complex interactions, guided by implicit social norms and mental frameworks.
OBJECTIVES
We investigated communication strategies that resident physicians report deploying to tailor information during face-to-face handoffs that are often based on their implicit inferences about the perceived information needs and potential harm to patients.
METHODS/PARTICIPANTS
We interviewed 35 residents in Medicine and Surgery wards at three VA Medical Centers (VAMCs).
MAIN MEASURES
We conducted qualitative interviews using audio-recorded semi-structured cognitive task interviews.
KEY RESULTS
The effectiveness of handoff communication depends upon three factors: receiver characteristics, type of shift, and patient's condition and perceived acuity. Receiver characteristics, including subjective perceptions about an incoming resident's training or ability levels and their assumed preferences for information (e.g., detailed/comprehensive vs. minimal/"big picture"), influenced content shared during handoffs. Residents handing off to the night team provided more information about patients' medical histories and care plans than residents handing off to the day team, and higher patient acuity merited more detailed information and the medical service(s) involved dictated the types of information conveyed.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that handoff communication involves a complex combination of socio-technical information where residents balance relational factors against content and risk. It is not a mechanistic process of merely transferring clinical data but rather is based on learned habits of communication that are context-sensitive and variable, what we refer to as "recipient design." Interventions should focus on raising awareness of times when information is omitted, customized, or expanded based on implicit judgments, the emerging threats such judgments pose to patient care and quality, and the competencies needed to be more explicit in handoff interactions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30535752
doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4755-5
pii: 10.1007/s11606-018-4755-5
pmc: PMC6374251
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
264-271Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Sep 18;157(6):417-28
pubmed: 22986379
Qual Saf Health Care. 2009 Aug;18(4):256-60
pubmed: 19651927
Ann Surg. 2007 Feb;245(2):159-69
pubmed: 17245166
Can J Nurs Res. 1988 Fall;20(3):59-69
pubmed: 3250725
Work. 2012;41 Suppl 1:2915-24
pubmed: 22317162
JAMA. 2007 Feb 28;297(8):831-41
pubmed: 17327525
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Feb;25(2):84-91
pubmed: 26221029
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2018 Aug;44(8):485-493
pubmed: 30071968
BMJ Open. 2017 May 9;7(5):e015762
pubmed: 28487461
Ann Fam Med. 2005 Mar-Apr;3(2):144-50
pubmed: 15798041
Teach Learn Med. 2016;28(1):88-96
pubmed: 26787089
Med Care. 2013 Jan;51(1):90-8
pubmed: 23132202
Am J Med Qual. 2009 May-Jun;24(3):196-204
pubmed: 19269930
Sociol Methodol. 2011 Aug 1;41(1):355-366
pubmed: 22228916
Med Educ. 2005 Apr;39(4):428-35
pubmed: 15813766
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Dec;19(6):493-7
pubmed: 20378628
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Dec;21 Suppl 1:i58-66
pubmed: 23100546
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Dec;21 Suppl 1:i22-8
pubmed: 23100548
Pediatrics. 2012 Feb;129(2):201-4
pubmed: 22232313
Adv Health Care Manag. 2011;11:91-132
pubmed: 22908667
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008 Oct;34(10):563-70
pubmed: 18947116
J Hosp Med. 2009 Sep;4(7):433-40
pubmed: 19753573
Acad Med. 2009 Dec;84(12):1775-87
pubmed: 19940588
Arch Intern Med. 2008 Sep 8;168(16):1755-60
pubmed: 18779462
Curr Surg. 2006 Nov-Dec;63(6):385-90
pubmed: 17084766
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006 Nov;32(11):646-55
pubmed: 17120925
Ergonomics. 1998 Nov;41(11):1618-41
pubmed: 9819578
J R Soc Med. 2013 Oct;106(10):387-90
pubmed: 24097963
J Biomed Inform. 2012 Apr;45(2):307-15
pubmed: 22142947
Soc Sci Med. 1996 Sep;43(6):919-31
pubmed: 8888462
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Mar;41(3):134-43
pubmed: 25977130
Int J Qual Health Care. 2004 Apr;16(2):125-32
pubmed: 15051706
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010 Feb;36(2):52-61
pubmed: 20180437