A Prospective Observational Study of Physician Handoff for Intensive-Care-Unit-to-Ward Patient Transfers
Abstract
Background Poor physician handoff can be a major contributor to suboptimal care and medical errors occurring in the hospital. Physician handoffs for intensive care unit (ICU)-to-ward patient transfer may face more communication hurdles. However, few studies have focused on physician handoffs in patient transfers from the ICU to the inpatient ward.Methods We performed a hospitalized patient-based observational study in an urban, university-affiliated tertiary care center to assess physician handoff practices for ICU-to-ward patient transfer. One hundred twelve adult patients were enrolled. The stakeholders (sending physicians, receiving physicians, and patients/families) were interviewed to evaluate the quality of communication during these transfers. Data collected included the presence and effectiveness of communication, continuity of care, and overall satisfaction.Results During the initial stage of patient transfers, 15.6% of the consulted receiving physicians verbally communicated with sending physicians; 26% of receiving physicians received verbal communication from sending physicians when patient transfers occurred. Poor communication during patient transfer resulted in 13 medical errors and 2 patients being transiently "lost" to medical care. Overall, the levels of satisfaction with communication (scored on a 10-point scale) for sending physicians, receiving physicians, and patients were 7.9±1.1, 8.1±1.0, and 7.9±1.7, respectively.Conclusion The overall levels of satisfaction with communication during ICU-to-ward patient transfer were reasonably high among the stakeholders. However, clear opportunities to improve the quality of physician communication exist in several areas, with potential benefits to quality of care and patient safety.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Complex patient transfers are vulnerable to provider miscommunication, which increases the risk of preventable medical errors and ICU readmissions.
“These complex patient transfers are vulnerable to provider miscommunication, which increases the risk of preventable medical errors and ICU readmissions [1-3].”
From Improving Communication in Intensive Care Unit to Ward Transitions: Protocol for Multisite National Implementation of the ICU-PAUSE Handoff Tool (2023) · cites this paper as [3]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 88
- Authors
- Li, P., Stelfox, H. T., & Ghali, W. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Pin
- Venue
- The American Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 860-867
- ISSN
- 0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074664980
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 7.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- intensive care unit, continuity of care, verbal communication, medical errors, patient safety, patient satisfaction, communication quality
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Alberta, Continuity of Patient Care, Cooperative Behavior, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Transfer, Patients' Rooms, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Patient Satisfaction, Medical Errors, Interdisciplinary Communication, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review