Continuing the transformation: charting the path for the future delivery of Veteran emergency care.

Important changes in the delivery of Veteran emergency care in the early 2000s in the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) emergency departments and urgent care clinics substantially elevated the role of emergency medicine (EM) in Veteran health care. Focused on enhancing the quality of care, emergency care visits in both VA and non-VA (community) care locations have nearly doubled from the 1980s to more than 3 million visits in Fiscal Year 2022. Recognizing the need to plan for continued growth and the opportunity to address key research priorities, the VA Office of Emergency Medicine, together with the VA Health Services Research and Development Service, collaborated to convene a State of the Art Conference on Veteran Emergency Medicine (SAVE) in the winter of 2022. The goal of this conference was to identify research gaps and priorities for implementation of policies for three priority groups: geriatric Veterans, Veterans with mental health and substance use complaints, and Veterans presenting to non-VA (community) emergency care sites. In this article we discuss the rationale for the SAVE conference including a brief history of VA EM and the planning process and conclude with next steps for findings from the conference.

Community Urgent Care Use Following Implementation of the Veterans Affairs Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act.

BACKGROUND: Effective June 6, 2019, Veterans Affairs (VA) began offering a new urgent care (UC) benefit that provides eligible Veterans with greater choice and access to care for the treatment of minor injuries and illnesses in their local communities. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to describe trends in UC use, identify predictors of UC benefit use, and understand the factors associated with community UC use versus VA emergency department (ED) or urgent care center (UCC) use. STUDY DESIGN: Using VA administrative data, this was a retrospective cross-sectional study of Veterans that were enrolled in VA in FY19. Veterans were classified into 3 groups: UC benefit users, benefit non-users, and VA ED/UCC users. METHODS: We used summary statistics to compare population characteristics across user groups. To determine whether predisposing, enabling, and need factors predicted UC benefit use and setting choice (community UCC vs. VA ED/UCC), 2 logistic regression models were fitted to assess odds of UC use. RESULTS: From June 6, 2019 through February 29, 2020, 138,305 Veterans made 175,821 community UC visits. The majority of visits were made by White males who were not subject to co-pays. The average cost to VA for UC visits was $132 (SD=$135). Upper respiratory infections were the most common reason for UC use. Being younger, female, and living farther from a VA ED/UCC was associated with greater UC benefit use compared with both benefit non-users and VA ED/UCC users. CONCLUSIONS: The new benefit expands Veteran access to UC services for low-acuity conditions.

Does academic practice protect emergency physicians against burnout?

Burnout is a complex syndrome thought to result from long-term exposure to career-related stressors. Physicians are at higher risk for burnout than the general United States (US) working population, and emergency medicine has some of the highest burnout rates of any medical specialty. Burnout impacts physicians' quality of life, but it can also increase medical errors and negatively affect patient safety. Several studies have reported lower burnout rates and higher job satisfaction in academic medicine as compared with private practice. However, researchers have only begun to explore the factors that underlie this protective effect. This paper aims to review existing literature to identify specific aspects of academic practice in emergency medicine that may be associated with lower physician burnout rates and greater career satisfaction. Broadly, it appears that spending time in the area of emergency medicine one finds most meaningful has been associated with reduced physician burnout. Certain non-clinical academic work, including involvement in research, leadership, teaching, and mentorship, have been identified as specific activities that may protect against burnout and contribute to higher job satisfaction. Given the epidemic of physician burnout, hospitals and practice groups have a responsibility to address burnout, both by prevention and by early recognition and support. We discuss methods by which organizations can actively foster physician well-being and provide examples of 2 leading academic institutions that have developed comprehensive programs to promote physician wellness and prevent burnout.

Assessment of Rates of Suicide Risk Screening and Prevalence of Positive Screening Results Among US Veterans After Implementation of the Veterans Affairs Suicide Risk Identification Strategy.

Importance: In 2018, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the Veterans Affairs (VA) Suicide Risk Identification Strategy to improve the identification and management of suicide risk among veterans receiving VHA care. Objectives: To examine the prevalence of positive suicide screening results among veterans in ambulatory care and emergency departments (EDs) or urgent care clinics (UCCs) and to compare acuity of suicide risk among patients screened in these settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) to assess veterans with at least 1 ambulatory care visit (n = 4 101 685) or ED or UCC visit (n = 1 044 056) at 140 VHA medical centers from October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019. Exposures: Standardized suicide risk screening and evaluation tools. Main Outcomes and Measures: One-year rate of suicide risk screening and evaluation, prevalence of positive primary and secondary suicide risk screening results, and levels of acute and chronic risk based on the VHA's Comprehensive Suicide Risk Evaluation. Results: A total of 4 101 685 veterans in ambulatory care settings (mean [SD] age, 62.3 [16.4] years; 3 771 379 [91.9%] male; 2 996 974 [73.1%] White) and 1 044 056 veterans in ED or UCC settings (mean [SD] age, 59.2 [16.2] years; 932 319 [89.3%] male; 688 559 [66.0%] White) received the primary suicide screening. The prevalence of positive suicide screening results was 3.5% for primary screening and 0.4% for secondary screening in ambulatory care and 3.6% for primary screening and 2.1% in secondary screening for ED and UCC settings. Compared with veterans screened in ambulatory care, those screened in the ED or UCC were more likely to endorse suicidal ideation with intent (odds ratio [OR], 4.55; 95% CI, 4.37-4.74; P < .001), specific plan (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 3.04-3.29; P < .001), and recent suicidal behavior (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.87-2.03; P < .001) during secondary screening. Among the patients who received a Comprehensive Suicide Risk Evaluation, those in ED or UCC settings were more likely than those in ambulatory care settings to be at high acute risk (34.1% vs 8.5%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, population-based suicide risk screening and evaluation in VHA ambulatory care and ED or UCC settings may help identify risk among patients who may not be receiving mental health treatment. Higher acuity of risk among veterans in ED or UCC settings compared with those in ambulatory care settings highlights the importance of scaling up implementation of brief evidence-based interventions in the ED or UCC to reduce suicidal behavior.

Changes to the ACGME Common Program Requirements and Their Potential Impact on Emergency Medicine Core Faculty Protected Time.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which regulates residency and fellowship training in the United States, recently revised the minimum standards for all training programs. These standards are codified and published as the Common Program Requirements. Recent specific revisions, particularly removing the requirement ensuring protected time for core faculty, are poised to have a substantial impact on emergency medicine training programs. A group of representatives and relevant stakeholders from national emergency medicine (EM) organizations was convened to assess the potential effects of these changes on core faculty and the training of emergency physicians. We reviewed the literature and results of surveys conducted by EM organizations to examine the role of core faculty protected time. Faculty nonclinical activities contribute greatly to the academic missions of EM training programs. Protected time and reduced clinical hours allow core faculty to engage in education and research, which are two of the three core pillars of academic EM. Loss of core faculty protected time is expected to have detrimental impacts on training programs and on EM generally. We provide consensus recommendations regarding EM core faculty clinical work hour limitations to maintain protected time for educational activities and scholarship and preserve the quality of academic EM.

Feasibility Study of a Quasi-experimental Regional Opioid Safety Prescribing Program in Veterans Health Administration Emergency Departments.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) was implemented in 2013 and was associated with a 25% relative decrease in the dispensing of opioids. Although emergency department (ED) providers play a role in the initiation and continuation of opioids, the incumbent OSI did not target EDs. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this feasibility study was to leverage the existing VHA OSI and test a novel ED-based quality improvement (QI) program to decrease opioid prescribing in multiple ED settings. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental study of phased-in implementation of a QI ED-based OSI. The general setting for this pilot were four VHA EDs across the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) region 19: Denver, Oklahoma City, Muskogee, and Salt Lake City. We developed and disseminated a dashboard to assess ED-specific prescribing rates and an ED-tailored toolkit to implement the program. Academic detailing pharmacists provided focused audits and feedback with the highest prescribing providers. We measured change in ED-provider prescribing rate of opioids for patients discharged from the ED, by provider and aggregated up to facility level, pre- and postimplementation. RESULTS: Interrupted time-series analysis of provider-level data from the program implementation sites indicated a significant decrease in the trend for proportion of opioid prescriptions relative to the preintervention trend. The results of the analysis suggest that the intervention was associated with accelerating the rate at which ED provider prescribing rates decreased. CONCLUSION: Due to the high volume of patients and the vital role the ED plays in patient treatment and hospital admissions, it is evident that the ED is an important site for QI programs as well as the implementation of opioid safety measures. Given the findings of this pilot, we believe that implementation of a national Veterans Affairs ED OSI implementation is feasible practice.

Discharge Information and Support for Patients Discharged from the Emergency Department: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Little research has been done on primary care-based models to improve health care use after an emergency department (ED) visit. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a primary care-based, nurse telephone support intervention for Veterans treated and released from the ED. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with 1:1 assignment to telephone support intervention or usual care arms (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01717976). SETTING: Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System (VAHCS) in Durham, NC. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred thirteen Veterans who were at high risk for repeat ED visits. INTERVENTION: The telephone support intervention consisted of two core calls in the week following an ED visit. Call content focused on improving the ED to primary care transition, enhancing chronic disease management, and educating Veterans and family members about VHA and community services. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was repeat ED use within 30 days. KEY RESULTS: Observed rates of repeat ED use at 30 days in usual care and intervention groups were 23.1% and 24.9%, respectively (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 0.7, 1.7; P = 0.6). The intervention group had a higher rate of having at least 1 primary care visit at 30 days (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1-2.3). At 180 days, the intervention group had a higher rate of usage of a weight management program (OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.6-7.5), diabetes/nutrition (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.0-3.0), and home telehealth services (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.0-2.9) compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: A brief primary care-based nurse telephone support program after an ED visit did not reduce repeat ED visits within 30 days, despite intervention participants' increased engagement with primary care and some chronic disease management services. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01717976.

Variability in opioid prescribing in veterans affairs emergency departments and urgent cares.

OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the U.S., serving approximately 2.5 million Veterans in the Emergency Department/Urgent Care Centers (ED/UCC) each year. Variation in opioid prescribing by ED/UCC providers in the VHA is described. METHODS: This is an observational study using administrative data from the VHA Pharmacy Benefits Management Services database to assess ED/UCC providers' opioid prescribing rates between October 1st, 2014 to June 30th, 2017 in 121 U.S. facilities. The opioid prescribing rate was defined as the number of opioid prescriptions written by the provider divided by the number of patients discharged from the ED/UCC by that provider, by quarter. A regression analysis was performed to estimate the association between time and prescribing rates by provider. RESULTS: Overall, the national trend in median prescribing rates decreased by 25.5% (p value = 0.00) from 9.1% ([range 1.5%-25.6%] to 6.4% [range 0.8%-21.8%]). The greatest rates of decline occurred between January 1st, 2016 to June 30th, 2017. The rate of provider opioid prescribing demonstrated wide variability between facilities (range: 0.5% to 39.1%). The prescribing rate for ED/UCC providers ranged from 0.2% to 100%. Between June 2016 and May 2017, 24 VHA ED/UCC providers were the highest opioid prescribers nationally in at least two of the four quarters (22%-70%), with rates two- to three-fold higher than their peers. CONCLUSION: ED/UCC providers in the VHA system nationally vary considerably in rates of opioid prescribing. A focused initiative tailored for ED/UCC providers is needed to decrease opioid prescribing variability.

Emergency physician evaluation of PA and NP practice patterns.

The unprecedented surge in physician assistants (PAs) and NPs in the ED developed quickly in recent years, but scope of practice and practice patterns are not well described. METHODS: We conducted two cross-sectional electronic surveys of the American College of Emergency Physicians' council. Survey construction was informed by interviews and evaluated with validity and reliability studies. Univariate analyses to establish associations also were performed. RESULTS: Most councilors' departments employ PAs and NPs (72.4% of 163 responses). Supervisory requirements varied greatly among respondents for the same emergency severity index (ESI) level. Regardless of experience level, NPs were reported to use significantly more resources than PAs; chi-square(4) = 105.292, P < .001 for less-experienced PAs or NPs; chi-square(4) = 120.415, P < .001 for more experienced PAs or NPs. CONCLUSION: Councilors reported great variation in PA and NP scope of practice. The results also suggest that new graduate PAs may be more clinically prepared to practice in the ED than new graduate NPs.

Transition of Care from the Emergency Department to the Outpatient Setting: A Mixed-Methods Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to characterize current practices in the transition of care between the emergency department and primary care setting, with an emphasis on the use of the electronic medical record (EMR). METHODS: Using literature review and modified Delphi technique, we created and tested a pilot survey to evaluate for face and content validity. The final survey was then administered face-to-face at eight different clinical sites across the country. A total of 52 emergency physicians (EP) and 49 primary care physicians (PCP) were surveyed and analyzed. We performed quantitative analysis using chi-square test. Two independent coders performed a qualitative analysis, classifying answers by pre-defined themes (inter-rater reliability > 80%). Participants' answers could cross several pre-defined themes within a given question. RESULTS: EPs were more likely to prefer telephone communication compared with PCPs (30/52 [57.7%] vs. 3/49 [6.1%] P < 0.0001), whereas PCPs were more likely to prefer using the EMR for discharge communication compared with EPs (33/49 [67.4%] vs. 13/52 [25%] p < 0.0001). EPs were more likely to report not needing to communicate with a PCP when a patient had a benign condition (23/52 [44.2%] vs. 2/49 [4.1%] p < 0.0001), but were more likely to communicate if the patient required urgent follow-up prior to discharge from the ED (33/52 [63.5%] vs. 20/49 [40.8%] p = 0.029). When discussing barriers to effective communication, 51/98 (52%) stated communication logistics, followed by 49/98 (50%) who reported setting/environmental constraints and 32/98 (32%) who stated EMR access was a significant barrier. CONCLUSION: Significant differences exist between EPs and PCPs in the transition of care process. EPs preferred telephone contact synchronous to the encounter whereas PCPs preferred using the EMR asynchronous to the encounter. Providers believe EP-to-PCP contact is important for improving patient care, but report varied expectations and multiple barriers to effective communication. This study highlights the need to optimize technology for an effective transition of care from the ED to the outpatient setting.

Quality of Care for Veterans With Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke.

Importance: The timely delivery of guideline-concordant care may reduce the risk of recurrent vascular events for patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke. Although many health care organizations measure stroke care quality, few evaluate performance for patients with TIA or minor stroke, and most include only a limited subset of guideline-recommended processes. Objective: To assess the quality of guideline-recommended TIA and minor stroke care across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system nationwide. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 8201 patients with TIA or minor stroke cared for in any VHA emergency department (ED) or inpatient setting during federal fiscal year 2014 (October 1, 2013, through September 31, 2014). Patients with length of stay longer than 6 days, ventilator use, feeding tube use, coma, intensive care unit stay, inpatient rehabilitation stay before discharge, or receipt of thrombolysis were excluded. Outlier facilities for each process of care were identified by constructing 95% CIs around the facility pass rate and national pass rate sites when the 95% CIs did not overlap. Data analysis occurred from January 16, 2016, through June 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ten elements of care were assessed using validated electronic quality measures. Results: In the 8201 patients included in the study (mean [SD] age, 68.8 [11.4] years; 7877 [96.0%] male; 4856 [59.2%] white), performance varied across elements of care: brain imaging by day 2 (6720/7563 [88.9%]; 95% CI, 88.2%-89.6%), antithrombotic use by day 2 (6265/7477 [83.8%]; 95% CI, 83.0%-84.6%), hemoglobin A1c measurement by discharge or within the preceding 120 days (2859/3464 [82.5%]; 95% CI, 81.2%-83.8%), anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation by day 7 after discharge (1003/1222 [82.1%]; 95% CI, 80.0%-84.2%), deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis by day 2 (3253/4346 [74.9%]; 95% CI, 73.6%-76.2%), hypertension control by day 90 after discharge (4292/5979 [71.8%]; 95% CI, 70.7%-72.9%), neurology consultation by day 1 (5521/7823 [70.6%]; 95% CI, 69.6%-71.6%), electrocardiography by day 2 or within 1 day prior (5073/7570 [67.0%]; 95% CI, 65.9%-68.1%), carotid artery imaging by day 2 or within 6 months prior (4923/7685 [64.1%]; 95% CI, 63.0%-65.2%), and moderate- to high-potency statin prescription by day 7 after discharge (3329/7054 [47.2%]; 95% CI, 46.0%-48.4%). Performance varied substantially across facilities (eg, neurology consultation had a facility outlier rate of 53.0%). Performance was higher for admitted patients than for patients cared for only in EDs with the greatest disparity for carotid artery imaging (4478/5927 [75.6%] vs 445/1758 [25.3%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This national study of VHA system quality of care for patients with TIA or minor stroke identified opportunities to improve care quality, particularly for patients who were discharged from the ED. Health care systems should engage in ongoing TIA care performance assessment to complement existing stroke performance measurement.

Asymptomatic Hypertensive Urgency at a VA Emergency Department.

Management of asymptomatic hypertension in a primary care setting rather than in the emergency department showed similar outcomes and was more cost-effective.

Risk stratification for return emergency department visits among high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 2 methods of identifying patients at high-risk of repeat emergency department (ED) use: high Care Assessment Need (CAN) score (≥90), derived from a model using Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data, and "Super User" status, defined as more than 3 ED visits within 6 months of the index ED visit. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Using McNemar's test, we compared rates of high-risk classification between CAN score and Super User status. We examined differences in patient characteristics and healthcare utilization across 4 levels of risk classification: high CAN and Super User status (n = 198), CAN <90 and non-Super User (n = 622), high CAN and non-Super User (n = 616), or Super User and CAN score <90 (n = 106). We used logistic regression to identify associations between risk classification and any ED visit within 90 days. RESULTS: Of 1542 veterans, 52.8% (n = 814) had a CAN score ≥90 and 19.7% (n = 304) were Super Users (P <.0001), indicating discrepant rates of high-risk classification. However, we found no differences in patient characteristics. Rates of subsequent ED use were high: 63.1% of patients had 1 or more ED visits. No levels of risk classification were associated with subsequent ED use within 90 days (P = .25). CONCLUSIONS: Among the VHA users with multimorbidity and 3 or more prior ED visits or hospitalizations, subsequent ED use was high. Although CAN scores have demonstrated utility for predicting hospitalizations and deaths, prior utilization and multimorbidity without further risk classification identified a high-risk group for repeat ED use.

Transition of Care Practices from Emergency Department to Inpatient: Survey Data and Development of Algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the current scope of handoff education and practice among resident physicians in academic centers and to propose a standardized handoff algorithm for the transition of care from the emergency department (ED) to an inpatient setting. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey targeted at the program directors, associate or assistant program directors, and faculty members of emergency medicine (EM) residency programs in the United States (U.S.). The web-based survey was distributed to potential subjects through a listserv. A panel of experts used a modified Delphi approach to develop a standardized algorithm for ED to inpatient handoff. RESULTS: 121 of 172 programs responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 70.3%. Our survey showed that most EM programs in the U.S. have some form of handoff training, and the majority of them occur either during orientation or in the clinical setting. The handoff structure from ED to inpatient is not well standardized, and in those places with a formalized handoff system, over 70% of residents do not uniformly follow it. Approximately half of responding programs felt that their current handoff system was safe and effective. About half of the programs did not formally assess the handoff proficiency of trainees. Handoffs most commonly take place over the phone, though respondents disagree about the ideal place for a handoff to occur, with nearly equivalent responses between programs favoring the bedside over the phone or face-to-face on a computer. Approximately two-thirds of responding programs reported that their residents were competent in performing ED to inpatient handoffs. Based on this survey and on the review of the literature, we developed a five-step algorithm for the transition of care from the ED to the inpatient setting. CONCLUSION: Our results identified the current trends of education and practice in transitions of care, from the ED to the inpatient setting in U.S. academic medical centers. An algorithm, which guides this process, is proposed to address the current gap in the standardized approach to ED to inpatient handoffs that were identified in the survey's assessment of needs.

Transitions of Care in an Era of Healthcare Transformation.

In the practice of modern emergency medicine (EM), transitions of care (TOC) have taken a prominent role, and during this time of healthcare reform, TOC has become a focal point of improvement initiatives across the continuum of care. This review includes a comprehensive examination of various regulatory, accreditation, and policy-based elements with which EM physicians interact in their daily practice. The content is organized into five domains: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), The Joint Commission, Affordable Care Act, National Quality Forum (NQF), and accountable care organizations. This review is meant to be a synthesis of TOC material, tailored for EM physicians and the teams that make these departments run. We include (1) relevant current regulations and standards from various entities that are most likely to affect the day-to-day practice of EM; (2) examination of the consequences of these regulations and standards and how they can be used to shape EM practice and clinical decision making; and (3) comparison of interventions aimed at improving TOC, including evidence from current literature, practical examples, and proposals. Emergency departments must develop, implement, and monitor TOC programs and processes that can facilitate seamless and efficient care as patients transfer between settings. This report provides a framework for that effort and is designed to help EM physicians continue to take the lead in improving TOC to help shape the future of modern practice.

Handoff Practices in Emergency Medicine: Are We Making Progress?

OBJECTIVES: Transitions of care present a risk for communication error and may adversely affect patient care. This study addresses the scope of current handoff practices amongst U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residents. In addition, it evaluates current educational and evaluation practices related to handoffs. Given the ever-increasing emphasis on transitions of care in medicine, we sought to determine if interval changes in resident transition of care education, assessment, and proficiency have occurred. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study guided by the Kern model for medical curriculum development. The Council of Residency Directors Listserv provided access to 175 programs. The survey focused on elucidating current practices of handoffs from emergency physicians (EPs) to EPs, including handoff location and duration, use of any assistive tools, and handoff documentation in the emergency department (ED) patient's medical record. Multiple-choice questions were the primary vehicle for the response process. A four-point Likert-type scale was used in questions regarding perceived satisfaction and competency. Respondents were not required to answer all questions. Responses were compared to results from a similar 2011 study for interval changes. RESULTS: A total of 127 of 175 programs responded to the survey, making the overall response rate 72.6%. Over half of respondents (72 of 125, 57.6%) indicated that their ED uses a standardized handoff protocol, which is a significant increase from 43.2% in 2011 (p = 0.018). Of the programs that do have a standardized system, a majority (72 of 113, 63.7%) of resident physicians use it regularly. Significant increases were noted in the number of programs offering formal training during orientation (73.2% from 59.2%; p = 0.015), decreases in the number of programs offering no training (2.4% from 10.2%; p = 0.013), and no assessment of proficiency (51.5% from 69.8%; p = 0.006). No significant interval changes were noted in handoffs being documented in the patient's medical record (57.4%), the percentage of computer/electronic signouts, or the level of dissatisfaction with handoff tools (54.1%). Less than two-thirds of respondents (80 of 126, 63.5%) indicated that their residents were "competent" or "extremely competent" in delivering and receiving handoffs. CONCLUSIONS: An insufficient level of handoff training is currently mandated or available for EM residents, and their handoff skills appear to be developed mostly informally throughout residency training with varying results. Programs that have created a standardized protocol are not ensuring that the protocol is actually being employed in the clinical arena. Handoff proficiency most often goes unevaluated, although it is improved from 2011.