Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 41–50 | Cite as

Passing the Baton: A Grounded Practical Theory of Handoff Communication Between Multidisciplinary Providers in Two Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Settings

  • Christopher J. Koenig
  • Shira Maguen
  • Aaron Daley
  • Greg Cohen
  • Karen H. Seal
Original Research

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Handoffs are communication processes that enact the transfer of responsibility between providers across clinical settings. Prior research on handoff communication has focused on inpatient settings between provider teams and has emphasized patient safety. This study examines handoff communication within multidisciplinary provider teams in two outpatient settings.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an exploratory study that describes handoff communication among multidisciplinary providers, to develop a theory-driven descriptive framework for outpatient handoffs, and to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different handoff types.

DESIGN & SETTING

Qualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 31 primary care, mental health, and social work providers in two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center outpatient clinics.

APPROACH

Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using Grounded Practical Theory to develop a theoretical model of and a descriptive framework for handoff communication among multidisciplinary providers.

RESULTS

Multidisciplinary providers reported that handoff decisions across settings were made spontaneously and without clear guidelines. Two situated values, clinic efficiency and patient-centeredness, shaped multidisciplinary providers’ handoff decisions. Providers reported three handoff techniques along a continuum: the electronic handoff, which was the most clinically efficient; the provider-to-provider handoff, which balanced clinic efficiency and patient-centeredness; and the collaborative handoff, which was the most patient-centered. Providers described handoff choice as a practical response to manage constituent features of clinic efficiency (time, space, medium of communication) and patient-centeredness (information continuity, management continuity, relational continuity, and social interaction). We present a theoretical and descriptive framework to help providers evaluate differential handoff use, reflect on situated values guiding clinic communication, and guide future research.

CONCLUSIONS

Handoff communication reflected multidisciplinary providers’ efforts to balance clinic efficiency with patient-centeredness within the constraints of day-to-day clinical practice. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses among alternative handoff options may enhance multidisciplinary provider handoff decision-making and may contribute to increased coordination and continuity of care across outpatient settings.

KEY WORDS

handoff communication outpatient care decision making coordination of care continuity of care patient-centeredness clinic efficiency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Contributors

We would like to thank the SFVAMC primary care providers, mental health providers, and social workers that took time to participate in this study. We also thank Dr. Lucile Burgo, Dr. John Chardos, Dr. Brad Felker, Dr. Drew Helmer, and Dr. Steve Hunt for their feedback on the interview guide. We extend a special thanks to Drs. Robert Craig, Karen Tracy, and Daniel Dohan for their theoretical counsel. Finally, we acknowledge and thank all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans for their service to our country.

Funders

Department of Defense awards W81XWH-08-2-0072 and W81XWH-08-2-0106 funded this study. The funders had no role in the design, data analysis, writing or approval of the manuscript.

Prior Presentations

A version of this article was presented orally at the annual meeting of the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies in November, 2011.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Solet DJ, Norvell JM, Rutan GH, Frankel RM. Lost in translation: Challenges and opportunities in physician-to-physician communication during patient handoffs. Acad. Med. 2005;80(12):1094–1099.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patterson ES, Wears RL. Patient handoffs: Standardized and reliable measurement tools remain elusive. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(2):52–61.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forrest CB. A typology of specialists’ clinical roles. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(11):1062–1068.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen AH, Yee HF. Improving the primary care-specialty care interface. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(11):1024–1026.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mehrota A, Forrest CB, Lin CY. Dropping the Baton: Specialty referrals in the United States. Millbank Q. 2011;89(1):39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epstein RM. Communication between primary care physicians and consultants. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4:403–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gandhi TK, Sittig DF, Franklin M, Sussman AJ, Fairchild DG, Bates DW. Communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:626–631.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haggerty JL, Reid RJ, Freeman GK, Starfield BH, Adair CE, McKendry R. Continuity of care: A multi-disciplinary review. Br Med J. 2003;327:1219–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM. Care coordination. In: Shojania KG, McDonald KM, Watcher RM, Owens DK, editors. Closing the quality gap: A critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Stanford Univesity-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center; 2007Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kimerling R, Pavao J, Valdez C, Mark H, Hyun JK, Saweikis M. Military sexual trauma and patient perceptions of Veteran Health Administration health care quality. Wom Health Issues. 2011;21(4S):S145–S151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bodenheimer T. Coordinating care–A perilous journey through the health care system. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(10):1064–1071.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stanton M, Dunkin JA. A review of case management functions relation to transitions of care at a rural nurse managed clinic. Prof Case Manag. 2009;14(6):321–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coleman EA, Berenson RA. Lost in transition: Challenges and opportunities for improving the quality of transitional care. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(7):533–536.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arora VM, Manjarrez E, Dressler DD, Basaviah P, Halasyamani L, Kripalani S. Hospitalist handoffs: A systematic review and task force recommendations. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(7):433–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horwitz LI, Moin T, Krumholz HM, Wang L, Bradley EH. What are covering doctors told about their patients? Analysis of sign-out among internal medicine house staff. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18(4):248–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horwitz LI, Moin T, Krumholz HM, Wang LL, Bradley EH. Consequences of inadequate sign-out for patient care. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1755–1760.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jeffcott SA, Evans SM, Cameron PA, Chin GSM, Ibrahim JE. Improving measurement in clinical handover. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18(4):272–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manser T, Foster S, Gisin S, Jaeckel D, Ummenhofer W. Assessing the quality of patient handoffs at care transitions. Quality & Safety in Health Care. 2010;19(6).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raduma-Tomas MA, Flin R, Yule S, Williams D. Doctors’ handovers in hospitals: a literature review. Qual Saf Health Caref. 2011;20(2):128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen MD, Hilligoss PB. The published literature on handoffs in hospitals: deficiencies identified in an extensive review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(6):493–497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wolber T, Ward D. Implementation of a diabetes nurse case management program in a primary care clinic: a process evaluation. J Nurs Healthc Chronic Illn. 2010;2(2):122–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacGregor C, Hamilton AB, Oishi SM, Yano EM. Description, development, and philosophies of mental health service delivery for female veterans in the VA: A qualitative study. Wom Health Issues. 2011;21(4):S138–S144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Elder M, Silvers S. The integration of psychology into primary care: Personal perspectives and lessons learned. Psychol Serv. 2009;6(1):68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Funderburk J, Maisto S, Sugarman D, Smucny J, Epling J. How do alcohol brief interventions fit with models of integrated primary care? Fam Syst Health . 2008;26(1):1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sigford BJ. “To Care for Him Who Shall Have Borne the Battle and for His Widow and His Orphan” (Abraham Lincoln): The Department of Veterans Affairs Polytrauma System of Care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(1):160–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tai-Seale M, Kunik ME, Shepherd A, Kirchner J, Gottumukkala A. A case study of early experience with implementation of collaborative care in the Veterans Health Administration. Popul Health Manag. 2010;13(6):331–337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Belanger HG, Uomoto JM, Vanderploeg RD. The Veterans Health Administration system of care for mild traumatic brain injury: Costs, benefits, and controversies. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2009;24(1):4–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hunter C, Goodie J. Operational and clinical components for integrated-collaborative behavioral healthcare in the patient-centered medical home. Fam Syst Health. 2010;28(4):308–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Craig R, Tracy K. Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Commun Theory. 1995;5(3):248–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bryant A, Charmaz K, eds. The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roberts C, Sarangi S. Theme-oriented discourse analysis of medical encounters. Med Educ. 2005;39(6):632–640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koenig CJ. Patient resistance as agency in treatment decisions. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(7):1105–1114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mirivel JC. Communicative Conduct in commercial medicine: Initial consultations between plastic surgeons and prospective clients. Qual Heal Res. 2010;20(6):788–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brady DW, Corbie-Smith G, Branch WT. “What’s important to you?”: The use of narratives to promote self-reflection and to understand the experiences of medical residents. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(3):220–223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bolton G. Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Greenhalgh J, Flynn R, Long AF, Tyson S. Tacit and encoded knowledge in the use of standardised outcome measures in multidisciplinary team decision making: A case study of in-patient neurorehabilitation. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(1):183–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Charon R. Narrative medicine - A model for empathy, reflection, profession, and trust. AMA. 2001;286(15):1897–1902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cohen BE, Gima K, Bertenthal D, Kim S, Marmar CR, Seal KH. Mental health diagnoses and utilization of VA non-mental health medical services among returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2009. Epub 2009/09/30.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hoge CW. Interventions for war-related posttraumatic stress disorder meeting veterans where they are. JAMA. 2011;306(5):549–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hoge CW, Castro CA, Messer SC, McGurk D, Cotting DI, Koffman RL. Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(1):13–22. Epub 2004/07/02.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vogt D. Mental health-related beliefs as a barrier to service use for military personnel and veterans: A review. Psychiatr Serv. 2011;62(2):135–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seal KH, Cohen BE, Metzler TJ, Gima K, Bertenthal D, Maguen S, et al. Mental health services utilization at VA facilities among Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans in the first year of receiving mental health diagnoses. J Trauma Stress. in press.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lu MW, Duckart JP, O’Malley JP, Dobscha SK. Correlates of utilization of PTSD specialty treatment among recently diagnosed veterans at the VA. Psychiatr Serv. 2011;62(8):943–949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zeiss AM, Karlin, BE. Integration of Mental health and primary care services in the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2008;15:73–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Maguen S, Cohen G, Cohen BE, Lawhon D, Marmar CR, Seal KH. The role of psychologists in the care of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in primary care settings. Prof Psychol: Res Pract. 2010;41(2):135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kvale S, Brinkmann S. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sacks H, Schegloff E, Jefferson G. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language. 1974;50(1):696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Miles M, Huberman M. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Blumer H. What is wrong with social theory? Am Sociol Rev. 1954;18:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hruschka DJ, Schwartz D, St. John DC, Picone-Decaro E, Jenkins RA, Carey JW. Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavorial research. Field Methods. 2004;16(3):307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Muhr T. Atlas.ti. 61st ed. Berlin: Scientific Software Development GmbH; 1993.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Crabtree B, Miller M, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1999.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Have Pt. Doing Conversation Analysis: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1999.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shaw LJ, de Berker DAR. Strengths and weaknesses of electronic referral: comparison of data content and clinical value of electronic and paper referrals in dermatology. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(536):223–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Singh H, Esquivel A, Sittig D, Murphy D, Kadiyala H, Schiesser R, et al. Follow-up actions on electronic referral communication in a multispecialty outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(1):64–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kim-Hwang JE, Chen AH, Bell DS, Guzman D, Yee HF, Kushel MB. Evaluating electronic referrals for specialty care at a public hospital. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(10):1123–1128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Keating NL, Zaslavsky AM, Ayanian JZ. Physicians’ experiences and beliefs regarding informal consultation. JAMA. 1998;280(10):900–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kuo D, Gifford DR, Stein MD. Curbside consultation practices and attitudes among primary care physicians and medical subspecialists. JaAMA. 1998;280(10):905–909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Myers JP. Curbside consultation in infectious diseases: A prospective study. J Infect Dis. 1984;150(6):797–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Goffman E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books; 1967.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Koenig
    • 1
  • Shira Maguen
    • 2
  • Aaron Daley
    • 3
  • Greg Cohen
    • 4
  • Karen H. Seal
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical CenterUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry, San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical CenterUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, San Francisco General HospitalSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Department of EpidemiologyColumbia UniversityNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations