Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 264–271 | Cite as

“Do You Know What I Know?”: How Communication Norms and Recipient Design Shape the Content and Effectiveness of Patient Handoffs

  • Nicholas A. RattrayEmail author
  • Mindy E. Flanagan
  • Laura G. Militello
  • Paul Barach
  • Zamal Franks
  • Patricia Ebright
  • Shakaib U. Rehman
  • Howard S. Gordon
  • Richard M. Frankel
Original Research

Abstract

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.

Key Words

communication resident handoffs qualitative research sociolinguistics quality of care patient safety risk management 

Notes

Authors’ Contribution

All authors were involved in the design of this research, participated in manuscript development, and critically revised the manuscript for its intellectual content. RMF obtained study funding and directed the study. NAR, MEF, LGM, PB, ZF, PE, and RMF participated in data analysis. NAR, RMF, MEF, and LGM drafted the manuscript, and NAR, MEF, RMF, LGM, ZF, PE, PB, SUR, and HSG read, revised, and approved the final version.We appreciate the efforts of Paige DeChant in data collection and analysis, and Dr. Maddamsetti Rao, Christopher Kurtz, Ava Harms, Angela Kuramoto, Naomi Ashlely, and Natalia Skorohod for assistance in recruitment and logistics. We thank Rachel Gruber for excellent assistance with manuscript preparation and submission, and Julie DiIulio for her graphic design contribution. We would also like to thank the VA residents that volunteered to take time out of their regular duties to participate in the study.

Funding

The research was funded by the Center for Health Information and Communication, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service (CIN 13-416), Project No. IIR 12-090.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethics approval was obtained from the University Institutional Review Board and the VAMC R&D Human Subjects board.

Conflict of Interest

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

Supplementary material

11606_2018_4755_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 27 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Kitch BT, Cooper JB, Zapol WM, et al. Handoffs causing patient harm: a survey of medical and surgical house staff. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2008;34(10):563–570.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horwitz LI, Moin T, Krumholz HM, Wang L, Bradley EH. Consequences of inadequate sign-out for patient care. Arch Intern Med 2008;168(16):1755–1760.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riesenberg LA, Leitzsch J, Massucci JL, et al. Residents’ and attending physicians’ handoffs: a systematic review of the literature. Acad Med 2009;84(12):1775–1787.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO, Williams MV, Basaviah P, Baker DW. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA 2007;297(8):831–841.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hesselink G, Schoonhoven L, Barach P, et al. Improving patient handovers from hospital to primary care: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012;157(6):417–428.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hesselink G, Vernooij-Dassen M, Pijnenborg L, et al. Organizational culture: an important context for addressing and improving hospital to community patient discharge. Med Care 2013;51(1):90–98.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hilligoss B, Mansfield JA, Patterson ES, Moffatt-Bruce SD. Collaborating-or “selling” patients? a conceptual framework for emergency department-to-inpatient handoff negotiations. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2015;41(3):134–143.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Toccafondi G, Albolino S, Tartaglia R, et al. The collaborative communication model for patient handover at the interface between high-acuity and low-acuity care. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21 Suppl 1:i58–66.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hilligoss B, Cohen MD. Hospital handoffs as multifunctional situated routines: implications for researchers and administrators. Advances in Health Care Management 2011;11:91–132.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patterson ES, Wears RL. Patient handoffs: standardized and reliable measurement tools remain elusive. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2010;36(2):52–61.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laugaland K, Aase K, Barach P. Interventions to improve patient safety in transitional care--a review of the evidence. Work 2012;41 Suppl 1:2915–2924.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tannen D, Wallat C. Doctor/mother/child communication: linguistic analysis of a pediatric interaction. In: Fisher S, Todd AD, eds. The Social Organization of Doctor-Patient Communication. Washington, D.C. Center for Applied Linguistics; 1983:203–220.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maynard DW, Heritage J. Conversation analysis, doctor-patient interaction and medical communication. MEDU Medical Education 2005;39(4):428–435.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    West C. Routine complications : Troubles with talk between doctors and patients. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frankel RM. From sentence to sequence: understanding the medical encounter through microinteractional analysis. Discourse Processes 1984;7(2):135–170.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language 1974;50(4):696–735.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goodwin C. Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press; 1981.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coulter J. The Sacks lectures. Hum Stud 1995;18(2/3):327–336.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bergman AA, Flanagan ME, Ebright PR, O'Brien CM, Frankel RM. “Mr Smith’s been our problem child today...”: anticipatory management communication (AMC) in VA end-of-shift medicine and nursing handoffs. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25(2):84–91.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patterson ES, Roth EM, Woods DD, Chow R, Gomes JO. Handoff strategies in settings with high consequences for failure: lessons for health care operations. Int J Qual Health Care 2004;16(2):125–132.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Collins SA, Mamykina L, Jordan D, et al. In search of common ground in handoff documentation in an intensive care unit. J Biomed Inform 2012;45(2):307–315.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arora V, Johnson J. A model for building a standardized hand-off protocol. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2006;32(11):646–655.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoffman RR, Militello LG. Perspectives on cognitive task analysis: historical origins and modern communities of practice. New York: Taylor and Francis; 2008.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Crandall B, Hoffman RR, Klein GA. Working minds: a practitioner's guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Militello L, Hutton R. Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): a practitioner’s toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands. Ergonomics 1998;41(11):1618–1641.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Katz AM, Shotter J. Hearing the patient’s ‘voice’: toward a social poetics in diagnostic interviews. Soc Sci Med 1996;43(6):919–931.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gilchrist V. Key informant interviews. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishers; 1992:70–89.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heckathorn DD. Snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol 2011;41(1):355–366.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dominguez C, Hutton R, J. F, McKellar D. Perception-action coupling in endoscopic surgery: a cognitive task analysis approach In: Barry B, Boutsma R, Guiard Y, eds. Studies in perception and action III. Mawah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1995.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Crandall, Calderwood R. Clinical assessment skills of experienced neonatal intensive care nurses [Contract 1 R43 NR0191101 for the National Center for Nursing, NIH] Fairborn, OH: Klein Associates Inc.; 1989.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Christensen RE, Fetters MD, Green LA. Opening the black box: cognitive strategies in family practice. Ann Fam Med 2005;3(2):144–150.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Patterson MD, Militello LG, Bunger A, et al. Leveraging the critical decision method to develop simulation-based training for early recognition of sepsis. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 2016;10(1):36–56.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Glazer B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine; 1967.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Borkan J. Immersion crystallization. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing qualitative research, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:179–194.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage; 1985.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied thematic analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2012.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cohen MD, Hilligoss PB. Handoffs in hospitals: a review of the literature on information exchange while transferring patient responsibility or control. Qual Saf Health Care 2010. 19(6):493–7Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, Allen AD, Landrigan CP, Sectish TC. I-pass, a mnemonic to standardize verbal handoffs. Pediatrics 2012;129(2):201–204.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee S-H, Desai SV, Phan PH. The impact of duty cycle workflow on sign-out practices: a qualitative studyof an internal medicine residency program in Maryland, USA. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):e015762.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cosman PH, Sirimanna P, Barach P. Building surgical expertise through the science of continuous learning and training. In: Sanchez JA, Barach P, Johnson JK, Jacobs JP, eds. Surgical patient care: improving safety, quality, and values: Springer Berlin; 2017.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jeffcott SA, Ibrahim JE, Cameron PA. Resilience in healthcare and clinical handover. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18(4):256–260.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Johnson JK, Barach P, Vernooij-Dassen M. Conducting a multicentre and multinational qualitative study on patient transitions. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21 Suppl 1:i22–28.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Young JQ, Ten Cate O, O'Sullivan PS, Irby DM. Unpacking the complexity of patient handoffs through the lens of cognitive load theory. Teach Learn Med 2016;28(1):88–96.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Riesenberg LA, Leitzsch J, Little BW. Systematic review of handoff mnemonics literature. Am J Med Qual 2009;24(3):196–204.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Militello LG, Rattray NA, Flanagan ME, et al. “Workin’ on Our Night Moves”: how residents prepare for shift handoffs. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2018;44(8):485–493.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Barach P, Phelps G. Clinical sensemaking: a systematic approach to reduce the impact of normalised deviance in the medical profession. J R Soc Med 2013;106(10):387–390.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stiles BM, Reece TB, Hedrick TL, et al. General surgery morning report: a competency-based conference that enhances patient care and resident education. Curr Surg 2006;63(6):385–390.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Williams RG, Silverman R, Schwind C, et al. Surgeon information transfer and communication: factors affecting quality and efficiency of inpatient care. Ann Surg 2007;245(2):159–169.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wolf ZR. Nursing rituals. The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres 1988;20(3):59–69.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Orne MT. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. Am Psychol 1962;17(11):776–783.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine (This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply)( 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas A. Rattray
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Mindy E. Flanagan
    • 1
  • Laura G. Militello
    • 4
  • Paul Barach
    • 5
  • Zamal Franks
    • 1
  • Patricia Ebright
    • 6
  • Shakaib U. Rehman
    • 7
  • Howard S. Gordon
    • 8
  • Richard M. Frankel
    • 1
    • 3
    • 9
  1. 1.VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication Roudebush VAMCIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyIndiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Regenstrief Institute, Inc.IndianapolisUSA
  4. 4.Applied Decision ScienceLLCDaytonUSA
  5. 5.Jefferson College of Population HealthWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitUSA
  6. 6.Indiana University School of NursingIndianapolisUSA
  7. 7.Phoenix VA Healthcare SystemsUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine-PhoenixPhoenixUSA
  8. 8.Jesse Brown VAMC, VA HSR&D Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic HealthcareUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  9. 9.Indiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations