Cited by 37Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units

Characterising ICU-ward handoffs at three academic medical centres: process and perceptions

Santhosh, Lekshmi, Lyons, Patrick G, Rojas, Juan C, Ciesielski, Thomas M, Beach, Shire, Farnan, Jeanne M, Arora, Vineet·2019·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is limited literature about physician handoffs between the intensive care unit (ICU) and the ward, and best practices have not been described. These patients are uniquely vulnerable given their medical complexity, diagnostic uncertainty and reduced monitoring intensity. We aimed to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU-ward handoffs across three teaching hospitals using multimodal methods: by identifying the handoff components involved in communication failures and describing common processes of patient transfer. METHODS: We conducted a study at three academic medical centres using two methods to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU-ward transfers: (1) an anonymous resident survey characterising handoff communication during ICU-ward transfer, and (2) comparison of process maps to identify similarities and differences between ICU-ward transfer processes across the three hospitals. RESULTS: Of the 295 internal medicine residents approached, 175 (59%) completed the survey. 87% of the respondents recalled at least one adverse event related to communication failure during ICU-ward transfer. 95% agreed that a well-structured handoff template would improve ICU-ward transfer. Rehabilitation needs, intravenous access/hardware and risk assessments for readmission to the ICU were the most frequently omitted or incorrectly communicated components of handoff notes. More than 60% of the respondents reported that notes omitted or miscommunicated pending results, active subspecialty consultants, nutrition and intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and healthcare decision-maker information at least twice per month. Despite variable process across the three sites, all process maps demonstrated flaws and potential for harm in critical steps of the ICU-ward transition. CONCLUSION: In this multisite study, despite significant process variation across sites, almost all resident physicians recalled an adverse event related to the ICU-ward handoff. Future work is needed to determine best practices for ICU-ward handoffs at academic medical centres.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008328

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The postimplementation survey cohort of internal medicine trainees and attendings will not be identical to the preimplementation cohort from the prior study.

    “A notable limitation is the inconsistency of our postimplementation survey cohort of internal medicine trainees and attendings, which will not be identical to the preimplementation cohort from our prior study [9].”
  • ICU-ward transitions are managed heterogeneously across health systems.

    “ICU–ward transitions are managed heterogeneously across health systems (1), which may affect hospital quality and safety (3).”
  • ICU-ward patient transfers are vulnerable because of patient complexity, clinical uncertainty, and nonintersecting communication between physicians and nurses.

    “Patients transferring from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the hospital wards are vulnerable because of patient complexity, clinical uncertainty, and nonintersecting communication between physicians and nurses (1).”
  • Despite marked differences in handoff processes across institutions, there was convergence of opinion by residents in focus groups across institutions.

    “Despite the marked differences in handoff processes across our institutions (1), there was convergence of opinion by residents in focus groups across institutions, suggesting that this intervention may be generalizable to other academic medical centers.”
  • PGY-1 residents infrequently hold primary responsibility for ICU-ward transfer communication at our institutions.

    “PGY-1 residents will be excluded from the study because they infrequently hold primary responsibility for ICU-ward transfer communication at our institutions [9].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Santhosh, L., Lyons, P. G., Rojas, J. C., Ciesielski, T. M., Beach, S., Farnan, J. M., & Arora, V.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Chicago Medical Center (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Santhosh, Lekshmi
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-01-12
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
627-634
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2910289174
Cited by
37
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • UCSF Institutional Training Grant (2T32HL007185-41)
  • Washington University of St. Louis Institutional Training Grant (5T32 HL007317, UL1 TR002345)
  • University of Chicago Institutional Training Grant (T32 HL007605)
  • Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF Academy of Medical Educators Innovations Gran)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI K24HL136859 Mid Career Mentoring Award)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Keywords
patient handover, intensive care unit discharge, communication breakdown, process mapping, internal medicine residents, adverse events, patient transfer, academic medical centers
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, United States, Health Care Surveys, Patient Handoff

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