“Do You Know What I Know?”: How Communication Norms and Recipient Design Shape the Content and Effectiveness of Patient Handoffs
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.
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.
We interviewed 35 residents in Medicine and Surgery wards at three VA Medical Centers (VAMCs).
We conducted qualitative interviews using audio-recorded semi-structured cognitive task interviews.
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.
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 Wordscommunication resident handoffs qualitative research sociolinguistics quality of care patient safety risk management
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.
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.
- 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Maynard DW, Heritage J. Conversation analysis, doctor-patient interaction and medical communication. MEDU Medical Education 2005;39(4):428–435.Google Scholar
- 16.West C. Routine complications : Troubles with talk between doctors and patients. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
- 17.Frankel RM. From sentence to sequence: understanding the medical encounter through microinteractional analysis. Discourse Processes 1984;7(2):135–170.Google Scholar
- 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.Goodwin C. Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press; 1981.Google Scholar
- 20.Coulter J. The Sacks lectures. Hum Stud 1995;18(2/3):327–336.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.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.Crandall B, Hoffman RR, Klein GA. Working minds: a practitioner's guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.Heckathorn DD. Snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol 2011;41(1):355–366.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.Glazer B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine; 1967.Google Scholar
- 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.Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage; 1985.Google Scholar
- 38.Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied thematic analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2012.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.Jeffcott SA, Ibrahim JE, Cameron PA. Resilience in healthcare and clinical handover. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18(4):256–260.Google Scholar
- 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.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.Riesenberg LA, Leitzsch J, Little BW. Systematic review of handoff mnemonics literature. Am J Med Qual 2009;24(3):196–204.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.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.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