JCC_Abraham(AcceptedVersion).pdf (647.39 kB)
Comparative Evaluation of the Content and Structure of Communication using Two Handoff Tools: Implications for Patient Safety
journal contributionposted on 2015-01-19, 00:00 authored by Joanna Abraham, Thomas G. Kannampallil, Khalid F. Almoosa, Bela Patel, Vimla L. Patel
Purpose: Handoffs vary in their structure and content, raising concerns regarding standardization. We conducted a comparative evaluation of the nature and patterns of communication on two functionally similar, but conceptually different handoff tools: SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan), based on a patient problem-based format, and HAND-IT (Handoff Intervention Tool), based on a body system-based format. Method: A non-randomized pre-post prospective intervention study supported by audio-recordings and observations of 82 resident handoffs was conducted in a MICU. Qualitative analysis was complemented with exploratory sequential pattern analysis techniques to capture the characteristics and types of communication events and breakdowns. Results: Use of HAND-IT led to fewer communication breakdowns [F(1,80) = 45.66, p < 0.0001], greater number of communication events [t(40) = 4.56, p < 0.001], with more ideal communication events than SOAP [t(40) = 9.27, p < 0.001]. Additionally, the use of HAND-IT was characterized by more request-response communication event transitions. Conclusion: HAND-IT’s body system-based structure afforded physicians the ability to better organize and comprehend patient information, and led to an interactive, and streamlined communication, with limited external input. Our results also emphasize the importance of information organization using a medical knowledge hierarchical format for fostering effective communication.
James S. McDonnell Foundation on Cognitive Complexity and Error in Critical Care (Grant 220020152 to Vimla L. Patel)
Publisher StatementNOTICE: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Critical Care. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Critical Care: doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.11.014