Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37802542›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2023

Improving handoff with the implementation of I-PASS at a tertiary oncology hospital.

Maria C Franco Vega, Mohamed Ait Aiss, Maura Smith, Marina George, Lakeisha Day, Anayo Mbadugha, Zalie Niangar, Diane Bodurka

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria C Franco Vega *Department of Hospital Medicine, Internal Medicine Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Mohamed Ait Aiss *Education & Training Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA mait@mdanderson.org.ORCID 0009-0005-8045-2756
Maura SmithInternal Medicine, Methodist Hospital System, Houston, Texas, USA.
Marina GeorgeDepartment of Hospital Medicine, Internal Medicine Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Lakeisha DayNocturnal Program, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Anayo MbadughaNocturnal Program, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Zalie NiangarNocturnal Program, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Diane BodurkaEducation & Training Division, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USMethodist Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLack of consistent and standardised handoffs is a leading cause of patient harm. With increased census in our hospital medicine (HM) service, failure to handoff using a standardised method has the potential to cause significant patient harm. We used a quality improvement methodology to standardise an existing and validated handoff tool within our HM team to improve handoff communication among providers and improve patient safety.

methodsA quality improvement team was charged with studying handoff communication among HM teams and between day and night shift providers at a tertiary oncology hospital. Multiple plan-do-study-act cycles were conducted, and process flow maps, root cause analysis and an affinity diagram were developed based on feedback from the HM team. The quality improvement team developed a plan to implement I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness and contingency plan, and Synthesis by receiver) as the standardised handoff tool to be used among the providers in HM at the end of shift and for handoff to the nocturnal covering service. Rates of I-PASS use were collected before and after several educational interventions to encourage use of I-PASS and were displayed in a control chart. After the I-PASS interventions, HM providers were surveyed twice to evaluate the secondary outcomes: the tool's impact on workflow, perceptions of patient safety, ease of use and satisfaction with I-PASS. Survey results were compared using Fisher exact tests.

resultsThe HM team's rate of use of I-PASS handoffs increased from 23% to 72%, an improvement of 68%. By the end of the quality improvement project, I-PASS use had increased to 90%. No significant differences were detected in the reported duration of handoffs after I-PASS implementation (on average <5 min per patient, p=0.205). Provider perceptions of handoff quality, efficiency, communication errors and the I-PASS tool's effectiveness were satisfactory.

conclusionWe used a quality improvement methodology to encourage the HM team's adoption of a validated handoff tool. Adherence to the standardised handoff tool significantly improved workflows and facilitated communication between the day and night shift teams.

Indexed as

Patient HandoffCommunicationHumansQuality ImprovementSurveys and QuestionnairesTertiary Care CentersPatient HandoffPatient safetyQuality improvement methodologies

Identifiers

PMID37802542
PMCPMC10565279
OpenAlexW4387439318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.