Cited by 2Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

‘This is our liver patient…’: use of narratives during resident and nurse handoff conversations

Kannampallil, Thomas, Jones, Steve, Abraham, Joanna·2020·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

Objective Handoffs are often framed as the co-construction of a shared understanding relying on narrative storytelling. We investigated how narratives are constructed and used during resident and nurse handoff conversations. Method We audio-recorded resident (n=149) and nurse (n=126) handoffs in an inpatient medicine unit. Qualitative analysis using grounded theory was conducted to identify and characterise the structure of resident and nursing handoff narratives. Results Handoff conversations among both residents and nurses used three types of narratives: narratives on creating clinical imagery, narratives on coordinating care continuity and narratives on integrating contextual aspects of care. Clinical imagery narratives were common during patient introductions: residents used a top-down approach relying on overarching patient clinical situations (eg, 'a liver patient'), whereas nurses used a bottom-up approach using patient-specific identifying information. Narratives on the coordination of care continuity for residents focused on managing internal and external coordination activities, whereas nurse narratives focused on internal coordination, emphasising their role as an interface between patients and their physicians. Both resident and nurse narratives on the contextual aspects of care had considerable focus on highlighting 'heads up' anticipatory information and personal patient information; such information was often not present in patient charts, but was important for…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-009268

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Prior work has found that nurses more frequently use a "bottom-up" (data and needs first) approach to patient summarization.

    “Prior work has also found that nurses more frequently use a “bottom-up” (data and needs first) approach to patient summarization,76 which agrees with our finding of specific risk-increasing data and conditions being important for handoff support (Subtheme 3.c).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kannampallil, T., Jones, S., & Abraham, J.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Kannampallil, Thomas
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-07-03
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
135-141
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2954957032
Cited by
2
References
2
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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
patient handover, narrative, continuity of care, patient safety, shared awareness
MeSH terms
Continuity of Patient Care, Female, Humans, Inpatients, Internal Medicine, Internship and Residency, Male, Nurses, Patient Care Team, Quality of Health Care, Video Recording, Physician-Nurse Relations, Interdisciplinary Communication, Narration, Qualitative Research, Patient Handoff, Grounded Theory

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