The impact of physician exits in primary care: A study of practice handovers.

Recent studies on physician exits suggest that general practitioners (GPs) have an important impact on health care utilization and costs, but the transmission channels - interpersonal dis- continuities of care, practice style differences and deterioration in access - are usually not clear. Our objective is to estimate the short-run and long-run impacts of switches in GPs on patients' health care utilization and costs, while all other factors of the health care setting remain the same. To do this, we collect data on handovers of primary care practices in Switzerland, occurring between 2007 and 2015. We link this data to rich insurance claims to construct a panel dataset of roughly 240,000 patients. Employing a difference-in-difference type framework, we find transitory increases in overall visits and costs, which are likely caused by the entering GP's initial re-assessment of patients' health care needs. Additionally, we find long-term increases in specialist health care utilization and ambulatory costs. The latter finding can be explained by changes in practice styles between the exiting GP and her successor, who is typically much younger and more likely to be female. In contrast to the literature on practice closures, we do not find evidence on reduced overall utilization rates. An important lesson for health policy is thus to preserve patients' access to care in the case of GP exits.

Assessing North Texas Regional Trauma Handoffs: A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Needs Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma video review of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) handoffs demonstrates frequent problems including interruptions and incomplete information transfer. This study aimed to perform a regional needs assessment of handoff perceptions and expectations to guide future standardization efforts. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of trauma providers through consensus building created an anonymous survey which was then distributed through the North Central Texas Trauma Regional Advisory Council and four regional level-1 trauma institutions. Qualitative data underwent content analysis; quantitative data are presented with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Survey responses (n = 249) were submitted by trauma nurses (38%), EMS (24%), emergency physicians (14%), and trauma physicians (13%). Median overall handoff quality was rated well (4, scale 1-5) despite some variability between hospitals (3, scale 1-5). The top five most important handoff details were the same for both stable and unstable patients: primary mechanism, blood pressure, heart rate, Glasgow Coma Scale, and location of injuries. While providers felt neutral about the data order, the vast majority supported immediate bed transfer and primary survey in unstable patients. The majority of receiving providers report interrupting handoff at least once (78%); and 66% of EMS clinicians found interruptions disruptive. Content analysis revealed top priority categories for improvement: environment, communication, information relayed, team dynamics, and flow of care. CONCLUSION: Although our data demonstrated satisfaction and concordance with respect to the EMS handoff, 84% of EMS clinicians reported some to high amounts of variability across institutions. Gaps in the development of standardized handoffs identified include exposure, education, and enforcement of these protocols.

Holistic strategy for promoting effective handoffs.

BACKGROUND: Handoffs are ubiquitous in modern healthcare practice, and they can be a point of resilience and care continuity. However, they are prone to a variety of issues. Handoffs are linked to 80% of serious medical errors and are implicated in one of three malpractice suits. Furthermore, poorly performed handoffs can lead to information loss, duplication of efforts, diagnosis changes and increased mortality. METHODS: This article proposes a holistic approach for healthcare organisations to achieve effective handoffs within their units and departments. RESULTS: We examine the organisational considerations (ie, the facets controlled by higher-level leadership) and local drivers (ie, the aspects controlled by the individuals working in the units and providing patient care). CONCLUSION: We propose advice for leaders to best enact the processes and cultural change necessary to see positive outcomes associated with handoffs and care transitions within their units and hospitals.

The design and application of an intensive care unit point-of-care nursing handover checklist based on the situation, background, assessment, and recommendation technique.

Objective: This study aims to analyze the effect of using an intensive care unit point-of-care nursing handover checklist based on the situation, background, assessment, and recommendation (SBAR) communication technique. Methods: An intensive care unit point-of-care nursing handover checklist was designed based on the SBAR technique, and standard point-of-care nursing handover procedures and effect assessment indicators were established to compare the occurrence of adverse handover events and nursing risks with those previously observed. Results: Before and after the application of the intensive care unit point-of-care SBAR checklist, the occurrence of missed items during the handover was 7.26 and 2.02%, inadequate preparation for handover was 28.33 and 5%, and nursing risks were 5 and 1.67%, respectively. Conclusion: Based on the SBAR technique, the application of an intensive care unit point-of-care nursing checklist reduced the occurrence of adverse handover events and nursing risks.

Can Incoming Interns Be Entrusted to Recognize Medical Emergencies? Implementation of a Vignette-Based Cross-Cover Assessment.

Background: Interns must recognize urgent clinical situations and know when to seek assistance. However, assessing this skill is challenging. Objective: We explored whether graduating medical students could determine urgency of medical cross-cover scenarios and what factors were associated with this ability. Methods: Sixty senior medical students enrolled in an internal medicine residency preparation course, and 28 experts were invited to take an assessment using 4 clinical vignette handoffs, each with 5 to 6 cross-cover scenarios. Respondents were asked whether they would evaluate the patient at bedside and notify their supervising resident. They were asked to rate their comfort managing the scenario, rate the urgency (1=low, 2=moderate, 3=high), and take a medical knowledge quiz. Student performance was categorized based on stratification of clinical urgency-those who underestimated (fourth quartile), accurately estimated (second and third quartile), and overestimated (first quartile) urgency. We examined differences between groups in medical knowledge, action, and confidence using analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey Honestly Significant Difference test. Results: Fifty-eight students (96.7%) and 22 experts (78.6%) participated. Clear differentiation emerged between students' ability to estimate urgency on the 3-point urgency scale (lowest quartile: 2.15±0.11; mid-quartiles: 2.38±0.07; upper quartile: 2.61±0.10, respectively). Students who underestimated urgency were less likely to notify their supervising resident (P=.001) and less likely to evaluate a patient at bedside (P=.01). There was no difference in quiz score or comfort level. Conclusions: Incoming interns vary in their abilities to recognize urgent scenarios, independent of medical knowledge and confidence.

Entrustable professional activities framework for assessment of patient handoffs in dentistry.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to report data on the lack of a proper patient handoff system in dentistry and dental education and to present a possible solution to integrate this into curriculum using the "entrustable professional activities" (EPAs) framework. METHODS: Delphi participants from seven US dental schools provided feedback on a preliminary definition of handoff, a mnemonic and an assessment rubric. 2019 American Dental Education Association Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education (ADEA CCI) participants further evaluated the handoff EPA using the EQual rubric for EPA quality and structure. RESULTS: Delphi participants identified points of transition in dentistry, selected the D-PASS as a mnemonic, and agreed with the evaluation rubric. The ADEA CCI participants agreed the handoff EPA describes work that is essential for the profession and suitable for entrustment. CONCLUSION: The D-PASS rubric is an effective way to assess patient handoffs.

[Evaluation of cancelled emergency physician missions and patient handovers in the area of Innsbruck : Retrospective assessment of physician-staffed emergency medical service cancellations and handovers from the emergency physician to the emergency medical service in 2017 and 2018]. / Evaluierung der NEF-Fehl- und Übergabeeinsätze im Raum Innsbruck : Retrospektive Auswertung der NEF-Stornierungen und Übergabeeinsätze vom Notarzt an den Rettungsdienst in den Jahren 2017 und 2018.

BACKGROUND: Human and vehicle resource management indicates a good emergency medical system (EMS). Frequently, an emergency medical technician (EMT) is the first responder to the emergency, which negates the necessity for an emergency physician (EP) and is just as sensible as handing over a stable patient to the EMT for transport to the hospital. The Austrian EMS is utilized by EMTs, in cases of potential life-threatening emergencies the dispatch center dispatches an additional team with an on-board EP. During the years 2017-2018 nearly every fifth EP mission in Innsbruck (including surrounding areas) ended in a cancellation. The numbers of patient handovers from EP to EMT are slightly lower with mission cancellations resulting in every fourth patient. Therefore, due to the high number of cancellations and handovers evaluated in this study, the findings suggest that there is a potential need to re-evaluate procedures. The re-evaluation of these procedures could determine whether these cancellations/handovers were justified or if an over hasty decision making was at fault. All cases considered in this study were from the Innsbruck and Telfs EP bases between 1 January 2017 and 13 December 2018. METHODS: Out of a total of 96,908 emergency dispatches, there were 2470 cancellation/handover occurrences. These occurrences consisted of 1190 cancellations and 1280 patient handovers from the EP to the EMT. Patients who were transferred to the University Hospital Innsbruck were included in these figures. The protocols of the emergency dispatches have been filtered from the so-called CarPC. They have subsequently been grouped into cancellation and handover categories. The clinical diagnoses of the patients with inpatient treatment were evaluated from the hospital information system (KIS) of the University Hospital Innsbruck. This was done with the help of the so-called emergency physician indications catalogue of the German Medical Council. The diagnosis was documented in the hospital information system. The emergency protocols from the EMTs were also evaluated retrospectively. The Innsbruck based EP patients are hospitalized in the Innsbruck Hospital due their geographical position. When there is no need for a specific intervention the patients of the EPs based in Telfs are transferred to a local hospital. When a specific intervention is necessary, patient care must be provided by the University Hospital Innsbruck. Due to the privacy practices of the Innsbruck Medical University "vote of ethics" only the data of patients transferred to the Innsbruck Clinic can be evaluated. The information provided from the EPs based in Innsbruck was exclusively from the University Hospital Innsbruck's anesthesiologists. The physicians from the Telfs EP base are of mixed medical specialities. All of them, however, have an emergency medical physician diploma, in addition to the ius practicandi. Lastly, there are no EPs in Innsbruck or Telfs, who have any special obligations during their duty. RESULTS: The results show that in 210 cases (8.5%) the indications for the EP, based on the emergency physician indications catalogue of the German Medical Council were given. Also, 8.7% of all cancellations and 8.4% of patient handovers were not justified. Patients with emergency indications had a longer hospitalization. The EP base EMS Innsbruck had more cancellations than the EP base EMS Telfs. The EMS Innsbruck also had more cancellations than patient handovers. Conversely, the EMS Telfs had more patient handovers than cancellations. On the weekends between 6:00 pm and 6:00 am there were less cancellations and handovers from both EP bases. The documentation from the EMT protocols was incomplete in 284 cancellations (23.9% of the cancellations) and 339 handovers (26.5% of the handovers), 35 patients after cancellations (2.9%), 35 patients after handovers (2.7%) needed intensive care treatment, 20 patients after cancellations (1.7% of all cancellations), and 24 patients after handovers (1.9% of all handovers) who needed intensive care treatment had a critical diagnosis. In 40 cases of patient handovers, the EP was alerted to another emergency follow-up within 10 min. CONCLUSION: In Austria, the introduction of a standardized emergency indication checklist might help dispatch centers to provide a more accurate dispatch as well as all EMS team members. Furthermore, a better traceability system (according to EP cancellations and patient handovers from the EP to the EMT) could be achieved. The documentation requirements should be more precise by all members of the EMT staff, not only for the legal aspects but also for improving the overall management quality. Intense education and training as well as diagnosis feedbacks could help to reduce the number of risky cancellations/patient handovers.

Improving handover competency in preclinical medical and health professions students: establishing the reliability and construct validity of an assessment instrument.

BACKGROUND: As part of the worldwide call to enhance the safety of patient handovers of care, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) requires that all graduating students "give or receive a patient handover to transition care responsibly" as one of its Core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for Entering Residency. Students therefore require educational activities that build the necessary teamwork skills to perform structured handovers. To date, a reliable instrument designed to assess teamwork competencies, like structured communication, throughout their preclinical and clinical years does not exist. METHOD: Our team developed an assessment instrument that evaluates both the use of structured communication and two additional teamwork competencies necessary to perform safe patient handovers. This instrument was utilized to assess 192 handovers that were recorded from a sample of 229 preclinical medical students and 25 health professions students who participated in a virtual course on safe patient handovers. Five raters were trained on utilization of the assessment instrument, and consensus was established. Each handover was reviewed independently by two separate raters. RESULTS: The raters achieved 72.22 % agreement across items in the reviewed handovers. Krippendorff's alpha coefficient to assess inter-rater reliability was 0.6245, indicating substantial agreement among the raters. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated the orthogonal characteristics of items in this instrument with rotated item loadings onto three distinct factors providing preliminary evidence of construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: We present an assessment instrument with substantial reliability and preliminary evidence of construct validity designed to evaluate both use of structured handover format as well as two team competencies necessary for safe patient handovers. Our assessment instrument can be used by educators to evaluate learners' handoff performance as early as their preclinical years and is broadly applicable in the clinical context in which it is utilized. In the journey to optimize safe patient care through improved teamwork during handovers, our instrument achieves a critical step in the process of developing a validated assessment instrument to evaluate learners as they seek to accomplish this goal.

Translation and Psychometric Assessment of the Postoperative Handover Assessment Tool.

PURPOSE: The objective of the present study was to translate and validate the Postoperative Handover Assessment Tool (PoHAT) in the Persian language. DESIGN: The study used a descriptive, mixed-method design. METHODS: The present descriptive, mixed-method study was conducted in 2018 at Shahid Rajaee Hospital and Shiraz Nursing and Midwifery School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (Shiraz, Iran), to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the PoHAT. The original version of PoHAT was translated into the Persian language and then back-translated for comparison. The face validity (qualitative), content validity (qualitative and quantitative), construct validity (experimental intervention method), and reliability (inter-rater reliability, internal consistency) of the Persian version of the PoHAT were assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software, version 22. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. FINDINGS: The content validity ratio of all the 34 items of the Persian version of the PoHAT ranged between 0.66 and 1. The content validity index for all items was within the acceptable range (between 0.92 and 1). The result of construct validity, using the experimental intervention method, showed a significant difference between before and after intervention (P < .05). The correlation coefficient for inter-rater reliability of all subscales (information, tasks, teamwork) and the total checklist was 0.89, 0.80, 0.94, and 0.85, respectively; the coefficient was significant for all subscales (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The validity and reliability of the 34-item Persian version of the PoHAT were confirmed. The application of the PoHAT to assess the process and quality of postoperative handover in Iran and other Persian-speaking countries is recommended.

"Increasing Warm Handoffs: Optimizing Community Based Referrals in Primary Care Using QI Methodology".

Social and environmental factors have an outsized effect on one's health. Children are particularly impacted by the adverse effects of poverty. While social determinants of health (SDH) screening in healthcare settings has proliferated there remain gaps in best practices for screening processes. As research has shown that patient navigation leads to an improvement in unmet social needs and family-reported child health, warm handoffs may be a key factor in assuring that the social needs of families are effectively addressed. Using quality improvement (QI) methods our pediatric clinic worked to increase the warm handoff rate between Community Health Workers (CHWs) and patients with unmet social needs. CHW warm handoff rates increased two-fold over the intervention period. Our results illustrate that QI methods can be used to optimize workflows to increase warm handoffs with CHWs. This is important as health centers work to improve their social needs screening and referral programs.

Prospective Observational Multisite Study of Handover in the Emergency Department: Theory versus Practice.

INTRODUCTION: The handover process in the emergency department (ED) is relevant for patient outcomes and lays the foundation for adequate patient care. The aim of this study was to examine the current prehospital to ED handover practice with regard to content, structure, and scope. METHODS: We carried out a prospective, multicenter observational study using a specifically developed checklist. The steps of the handover process in the ED were documented in relation to qualification of the emergency medical services (EMS) staff, disease severity, injury patterns, and treatment priority. RESULTS: We documented and evaluated 721 handovers based on the checklist. According to ISBAR (Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation), MIST (Mechanism, Injuries, Signs/Symptoms, Treatment), and BAUM (Situation [German: Bestand], Anamnesis, Examination [German: Untersuchung], Measures), almost all handovers showed a deficit in structure and scope (99.4%). The age of the patient was reported 339 times (47.0%) at the time of handover. The time of the emergency onset was reported in 272 cases (37.7%). The following vital signs were transferred more frequently for resuscitation room patients than for treatment room patients: blood pressure (BP)/(all comparisons p < 0.05), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Physicians transmitted these vital signs more frequently than paramedics BP, HR, SpO2, and GCS. A handover with a complete ABCDE algorithm (Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Environment/Exposure) took place only 31 times (4.3%). There was a significant difference between the occupational groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite many studies on handover standardization, there is a remarkable inconsistency in the transfer of information. A "hand-off bundle" must be created to standardize the handover process, consisting of a uniform mnemonic accompanied by education of staff, training, and an audit process.

Assessment of Care Handoffs Among Hospitalist Physicians and 30-Day Mortality in Hospitalized Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Inpatients treated by hospitalist physicians, who often work contiguous days, experience handoffs at the end of a scheduled shift block. Evidence suggests that transitions of patient care, or handoffs, among physician trainees are associated with adverse patient outcomes. However, little is known about the association between handoffs and patient outcomes among attending physicians, even though similar concerns apply. Objective: To examine the association between inpatient handoffs of hospitalist physicians and patient mortality among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed a random sample of Medicare beneficiaries who were hospitalized with a general medical condition between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, and treated by a hospitalist. The study compared outcomes of patients with low vs high probability of physician handoff based on date of patient admission relative to the admitting hospitalist's last working day in a scheduled block, hypothesizing that otherwise similar patients admitted toward the end of a physician's shift block would be more likely to be handed off to another physician compared with patients admitted earlier in the shift block. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2018, to January 12, 2021. Exposure: High vs low probability of physician handoff. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was patient 30-day mortality rate. Results: A total of 1 074 000 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [13.7] years; 57.4% female; 82.1% White) were studied. Multivariable regression models adjusted for beneficiary clinical and demographic characteristics and hospital fixed effects (a within-hospital analysis, effectively comparing patients treated at the same hospital). Among 597 288 hospitalizations, no overall difference in 30-day mortality was observed between patients admitted in the 2 days prior (days -1 and -2) to the treating hospitalist's last working day (a high handoff probability) compared with days -6 and -7 (a low handoff probability) (adjusted rate, 10.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-10.7% vs 10.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-10.7%; adjusted difference, 0.0%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 0.1%). However, in an exploratory analysis, among patients with high illness severity, defined as those in the top quartile of estimated mortality, 30-day mortality was higher for those with high vs low likelihood of physician handoff (adjusted mortality, 27.8%; 95% CI, 27.6%-27.9% vs 26.8%; 95% CI, 26.6%-27.1%; absolute adjusted difference, 1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this national analysis of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with a general medical condition and treated by a hospitalist physician, physician handoff was not associated with increased mortality overall.

Content Analysis of Patient Safety Incident Reports for Older Adult Patient Transfers, Handovers, and Discharges: Do They Serve Organizations, Staff, or Patients?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyze content of incident reports during patient transitions in the context of care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke. METHODS: A structured search strategy identified incident reports involving patient transitions (March 2014-August 2014, January 2015-June 2015) within 2 National Health Service Trusts (in upper and lower quartiles of incident reports/100 admissions) in care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke. Content analysis identified the following: incident classifications; active failures; latent conditions; patient/relative involvement; and evidence of individual or organizational learning. Reported harm was interpreted with reference to National Reporting and Learning System criteria. RESULTS: A total 278 incident reports were analyzed. Fourteen incident classifications were identified, with pressure ulcers the modal category (n = 101,36%), followed by falls (n = 32, 12%), medication (n = 31, 11%), and documentation (n = 29, 10%). Half (n = 139, 50%) of incident reports related to interunit/department/team transfers. Latent conditions were explicit in 33 (12%) reports; most frequently, these related to inadequate resources/staff and concomitant time pressures (n = 13). Patient/family involvement was explicit in 61 (22%) reports. Patient well-being was explicit in 24 (9%) reports. Individual and organizational learning was evident in 3% and 7% of reports, respectively. Reported harm was significantly lower than coder-interpreted harm (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Incident report quality was suboptimal for individual and organizational learning. Underreporting level of harm suggests reporter bias, which requires reducing as much as practicable. System-level interventions are warranted to encourage use of staff reflective skills, emphasizing joint ownership of incidents. Co-producing incident reports with other clinicians involved in the transition and patients/relatives could optimize organizational learning.

Evaluation of the Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation Handover Tool in Improving Communication and Satisfaction Among Jordanian Nurses Working in Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND: The SBAR (situation, background, assessment, and recommendation) is a standardized handover tool that has been utilized in health care settings. It has positive impacts on staff communication and patient quality of care. In Jordan, few reports are available about handover tools' impacts. PURPOSE: To evaluate the implementation of the SBAR among nurses in intensive care units (ICUs) in Jordan. METHODS: A pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was used. A convenience sample of 71 ICU nurses participated. The 43-item ICU physician-nurse questionnaire was used to measure SBAR effectiveness as measured by the following subscales: general relationship and communication, teamwork and leadership, and job satisfaction. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in posttest knowledge scores and in "general relationships and communication" and "satisfaction" scores. There was a significant improvement in both "general relationships and communication" and "satisfaction" posttest scores compared with their pretest scores (t = 16.709, 2.656; P < .001, P < .01) consecutively. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed a strong indicator to encourage the SBAR utilization among nurses in health care settings. The SBAR has a positive impact on enhancing communication between nurses and increasing their job satisfaction. Thus, the utilization of such a standardized tool that maintains and assures good communication relationships shall increase level of satisfaction. Future studies are recommended to provide further evidence on its feasibility and efficacy as compared with traditional handover tools and among different health care contexts.

Assessment and improvement of junior doctor handover in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Effective handover between junior doctors is widely accepted as essential for patient safety. The British Medical Association in association with the National Health Service (NHS) National Patient Safety Agency and NHS Modernisation Agency have produced clear guidance regarding the contents and setting for a safe and efficient handover. We aimed to understand current junior doctor's opinions on the handover process in a London emergency department (ED), with subsequent assessment, and any necessary improvement, of handover practices within the department. METHODS: In a London ED, a baseline survey was completed by the senior house officer (SHO) cohort to gauge current opinions of the existing handover process. Concurrently, a blinded prospective audit of handover practises was conducted. Multiple improvement strategies were subsequently implemented and assessed via Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. A standard operating procedure was initially introduced and 'rolled out' throughout the department. This intervention was followed by development of an electronic handover note to ease completion of a satisfactory handover. Additional surveys were conducted to continually assess SHO opinion on how the handover process was developing. The final improvement strategy was formal handover teaching at the SHO induction. RESULTS: Baseline audit and SHO survey highlighted several opportunities for improvement. 5 handover components were deemed essential: (1) documented handover note; (2) doctor's names; (3) history of presenting complaint; (4) ED actions; and (5) ongoing plan. The frequency of these components saw significant improvement by completion of the final PDSA. Following SHO rotation, all of the essential components fell, only to recover after the next improvement strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Junior doctors in a London ED were not satisfied with the current SHO handover process, and handover practices were not adequate. While the rotational nature of the SHO cohort makes sustained change challenging, implementation of thoughtful and realistic improvement strategies can significantly improve handover quality.

Paramedic experiences of using an enhanced stroke assessment during a cluster randomised trial: a qualitative thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis is a key element of emergency treatment for acute ischaemic stroke, but hospital service delivery is variable. The Paramedic Acute Stroke Treatment Assessment (PASTA) multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial evaluated whether an enhanced paramedic-initiated stroke assessment pathway could improve thrombolysis volume. This paper reports the findings of a parallel process evaluation which explored intervention paramedics' experience of delivering the enhanced assessment. METHODS: Interviewees were recruited from 453 trained intervention paramedics across three UK ambulance services hosting the trial: North East, North West and Welsh Ambulance Services. A semistructured interview guide aimed to (1) explore the stroke-specific assessment and handover procedures which were part of the PASTA pathway and (2) enable paramedics to share relevant views about expanding their role and any barriers/enablers they encountered. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed following the principles of the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Twenty-six interviews were conducted (11 North East, 10 North West and 5 Wales). Iterative data analysis identified four key themes, which reflected paramedics' experiences at different stages of the care pathway: (1) Enhanced assessment at scene: paramedics felt this improved their skillset and confidence. (2) Prealert to hospital: a mixed experience dependent on receiving hospital staff. (3) Handover to hospital team: standardisation of format was viewed as the primary benefit of the PASTA pathway. (4) Assisting in hospital and feedback: due to professional boundaries, paramedics found these aspects harder to achieve, although feedback from the clinical team was valued when available. CONCLUSION: Paramedics believed that the PASTA pathway enhanced their skills and the emergency care of stroke patients, but a continuing clinical role postadmission was challenging. Future studies should consider whether interdisciplinary training is needed to enable more radical extension of professional boundaries for paramedics.

Usability Assessment of an Electronic Handoff Tool to Facilitate and Improve Postoperative Communication Between Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit Staff.

The handoff or handover is the exchange of pertinent medical information from one provider to another. Inadequate handoff communication between healthcare providers can negatively impact patient outcomes. In an effort to improve handoff communication, many studies have developed and evaluated the use of a handoff tool such as a handoff checklist or handoff form to facilitate handoff communication. Recently, the use of the IPASS handoff form, based on the mnemonic for the process, has been associated with a reduction in the rate of adverse events and improvement in information transfer and nurse satisfaction. This quality improvement project adapted the IPASS handoff form for postoperative use in an iterative approach over a series of four phases: (1) requirements/information gathering, (2) adaptation/development, (3) evaluation and modification, and (4) usability testing. Results of this project show that participants viewed the postoperative IPASS handoff form to be easy to use (87.5%), satisfactory (75.0%), and user-friendly (75.0%), which can facilitate its widespread adoption. The key feature identified in making the handoff form user-friendly was its customization feature, which allowed the handoff report to be shortened or expanded to meet the provider- or unit-specific needs.

Barriers to Communication in a PICU: A Qualitative Investigation of Family and Provider Perceptions.

OBJECTIVES: Family and medical provider perceptions of communication barriers within the PICU are poorly understood. We designed a qualitative study to characterize the perspective of families and medical providers of critically ill children regarding communication barriers. The identified barriers may be used to direct efforts to improve communication. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted from August 2017 to January 2018. Interviews were audio recorded and professionally transcribed verbatim. SETTING: A PICU at a tertiary care academic center. PATIENTS: Forty-two families whose children were admitted to the PICU (excluding patients receiving end-of-life care or with protective services involvement) and 12 PICU staff members, including nurses, residents, fellows, and attending's. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An interprofessional team of a physician, nurse manager, and medical student coded the transcripts. Interviewing continued until thematic saturation was reached. Codes were organized into common themes using a modified constant comparative method. The families interviewed represented 16 previously healthy children, and 26 children with a chronic health condition. Staff interviewed included three residents, three fellows, three attending intensivists, and three nurses. Participants' perceptions and experiences of barriers to communication included the following: 1) Communication breakdowns related to coordination of care among several services, 2) Family-centered rounds are insufficient for effective communication, 3) Undervaluing the knowledge of families of children with chronic health conditions or special needs, and 4) Communication breakdowns occur across provider hand-offs. Theme 3 was identified by families, but not by providers. CONCLUSIONS: Families and medical providers both identified several barriers to communication. However, only families identified the barrier "Undervaluing the knowledge of families with chronically ill children." Future work should explore these barriers and the discrepancy in perception between providers and families to determine if there are interventions that improve both family satisfaction and patient care.