Clinical handover: Can we afford the time?

Kim Forrester, Christine Duffield, Michael Roche, Eamon Merrick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This dissertation is motivated by two problems. First, existing literature characterizes patient handoff as an information transfer activity in which safety and quality are compromised by practice variation. This has prompted a movement to standardize practice. However, existing research has not closely examined how practice variations may be responses to situational and organizational factors or evidence of involved parties accomplishing important functions beyond information transfer. Consequently, standardization efforts run at least two risks: overlooking opportunities for improvement, and engendering negative unintended consequences. Second, despite the fact that roughly 50% of all hospitalized patients are handed off from emergency departments to inpatient units, such handoffs are significantly understudied. I conducted a two-year ethnographic study of handoffs occurring between Emergency Department and General Medicine physicians when patients were admitted to one highly-specialized tertiary referral, teaching hospital. Using theoretical sampling informed by a Grounded Theory methodology, I conducted observations (n=349 hours) and semi-structured interviews (n=48) and recorded handoff conversations (n=48). I analyzed data by means of immersion, various qualitative coding approaches, and memo writing. Findings are organized in three chapters. First, I challenge the dominant model of handoff as information transfer by demonstrating that physicians actively construct understandings of their patients, over time, as they encounter, interpret, assemble, and reassemble information through socially-interactive processes within particular contexts and situations. Consequently, multiple understandings of a single patient are not only possible but likely. Second, I characterize admission handoffs as negotiations, situated by entangled webs of motives and concerns which produce ambiguities. Involved parties must navigate these ambiguities as they develop their differing understandings of patients, resolve conflicts over approaches to care, and agree regarding additional work. Third, I show that boundaries between units are ongoing, effortful accomplishments, re-enacted through interactive negotiations. Over time these negotiations have the potential to shift boundaries and alter the divisions of labor in the hospital, with potential consequences for organizational outcomes. Recommendations for practical improvements and further research are presented.
Original languageEnglish
Article number1320-159X
Pages (from-to)176-179
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Law and Medicine
Volume13
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Handoff
Negotiating
Hospital Emergency Service
Physicians
Immersion
Research
Tertiary Care Centers
Teaching Hospitals
Inpatients
Medicine
Interviews
Safety

Cite this

Forrester, K., Duffield, C., Roche, M., & Merrick, E. (2005). Clinical handover: Can we afford the time? Journal of Law and Medicine, 13(2), 176-179. [1320-159X].
Forrester, Kim ; Duffield, Christine ; Roche, Michael ; Merrick, Eamon. / Clinical handover : Can we afford the time?. In: Journal of Law and Medicine. 2005 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 176-179.
@article{5b745ce75e504b6085403425233dfb5c,
title = "Clinical handover: Can we afford the time?",
abstract = "This dissertation is motivated by two problems. First, existing literature characterizes patient handoff as an information transfer activity in which safety and quality are compromised by practice variation. This has prompted a movement to standardize practice. However, existing research has not closely examined how practice variations may be responses to situational and organizational factors or evidence of involved parties accomplishing important functions beyond information transfer. Consequently, standardization efforts run at least two risks: overlooking opportunities for improvement, and engendering negative unintended consequences. Second, despite the fact that roughly 50{\%} of all hospitalized patients are handed off from emergency departments to inpatient units, such handoffs are significantly understudied. I conducted a two-year ethnographic study of handoffs occurring between Emergency Department and General Medicine physicians when patients were admitted to one highly-specialized tertiary referral, teaching hospital. Using theoretical sampling informed by a Grounded Theory methodology, I conducted observations (n=349 hours) and semi-structured interviews (n=48) and recorded handoff conversations (n=48). I analyzed data by means of immersion, various qualitative coding approaches, and memo writing. Findings are organized in three chapters. First, I challenge the dominant model of handoff as information transfer by demonstrating that physicians actively construct understandings of their patients, over time, as they encounter, interpret, assemble, and reassemble information through socially-interactive processes within particular contexts and situations. Consequently, multiple understandings of a single patient are not only possible but likely. Second, I characterize admission handoffs as negotiations, situated by entangled webs of motives and concerns which produce ambiguities. Involved parties must navigate these ambiguities as they develop their differing understandings of patients, resolve conflicts over approaches to care, and agree regarding additional work. Third, I show that boundaries between units are ongoing, effortful accomplishments, re-enacted through interactive negotiations. Over time these negotiations have the potential to shift boundaries and alter the divisions of labor in the hospital, with potential consequences for organizational outcomes. Recommendations for practical improvements and further research are presented.",
author = "Kim Forrester and Christine Duffield and Michael Roche and Eamon Merrick",
year = "2005",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "176--179",
journal = "Journal of Law and Medicine",
issn = "1320-159X",
publisher = "Thomson Head Office",
number = "2",

}

Forrester, K, Duffield, C, Roche, M & Merrick, E 2005, 'Clinical handover: Can we afford the time?' Journal of Law and Medicine, vol. 13, no. 2, 1320-159X, pp. 176-179.

Clinical handover : Can we afford the time? / Forrester, Kim; Duffield, Christine; Roche, Michael; Merrick, Eamon.

In: Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1320-159X, 2005, p. 176-179.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical handover

T2 - Can we afford the time?

AU - Forrester, Kim

AU - Duffield, Christine

AU - Roche, Michael

AU - Merrick, Eamon

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - This dissertation is motivated by two problems. First, existing literature characterizes patient handoff as an information transfer activity in which safety and quality are compromised by practice variation. This has prompted a movement to standardize practice. However, existing research has not closely examined how practice variations may be responses to situational and organizational factors or evidence of involved parties accomplishing important functions beyond information transfer. Consequently, standardization efforts run at least two risks: overlooking opportunities for improvement, and engendering negative unintended consequences. Second, despite the fact that roughly 50% of all hospitalized patients are handed off from emergency departments to inpatient units, such handoffs are significantly understudied. I conducted a two-year ethnographic study of handoffs occurring between Emergency Department and General Medicine physicians when patients were admitted to one highly-specialized tertiary referral, teaching hospital. Using theoretical sampling informed by a Grounded Theory methodology, I conducted observations (n=349 hours) and semi-structured interviews (n=48) and recorded handoff conversations (n=48). I analyzed data by means of immersion, various qualitative coding approaches, and memo writing. Findings are organized in three chapters. First, I challenge the dominant model of handoff as information transfer by demonstrating that physicians actively construct understandings of their patients, over time, as they encounter, interpret, assemble, and reassemble information through socially-interactive processes within particular contexts and situations. Consequently, multiple understandings of a single patient are not only possible but likely. Second, I characterize admission handoffs as negotiations, situated by entangled webs of motives and concerns which produce ambiguities. Involved parties must navigate these ambiguities as they develop their differing understandings of patients, resolve conflicts over approaches to care, and agree regarding additional work. Third, I show that boundaries between units are ongoing, effortful accomplishments, re-enacted through interactive negotiations. Over time these negotiations have the potential to shift boundaries and alter the divisions of labor in the hospital, with potential consequences for organizational outcomes. Recommendations for practical improvements and further research are presented.

AB - This dissertation is motivated by two problems. First, existing literature characterizes patient handoff as an information transfer activity in which safety and quality are compromised by practice variation. This has prompted a movement to standardize practice. However, existing research has not closely examined how practice variations may be responses to situational and organizational factors or evidence of involved parties accomplishing important functions beyond information transfer. Consequently, standardization efforts run at least two risks: overlooking opportunities for improvement, and engendering negative unintended consequences. Second, despite the fact that roughly 50% of all hospitalized patients are handed off from emergency departments to inpatient units, such handoffs are significantly understudied. I conducted a two-year ethnographic study of handoffs occurring between Emergency Department and General Medicine physicians when patients were admitted to one highly-specialized tertiary referral, teaching hospital. Using theoretical sampling informed by a Grounded Theory methodology, I conducted observations (n=349 hours) and semi-structured interviews (n=48) and recorded handoff conversations (n=48). I analyzed data by means of immersion, various qualitative coding approaches, and memo writing. Findings are organized in three chapters. First, I challenge the dominant model of handoff as information transfer by demonstrating that physicians actively construct understandings of their patients, over time, as they encounter, interpret, assemble, and reassemble information through socially-interactive processes within particular contexts and situations. Consequently, multiple understandings of a single patient are not only possible but likely. Second, I characterize admission handoffs as negotiations, situated by entangled webs of motives and concerns which produce ambiguities. Involved parties must navigate these ambiguities as they develop their differing understandings of patients, resolve conflicts over approaches to care, and agree regarding additional work. Third, I show that boundaries between units are ongoing, effortful accomplishments, re-enacted through interactive negotiations. Over time these negotiations have the potential to shift boundaries and alter the divisions of labor in the hospital, with potential consequences for organizational outcomes. Recommendations for practical improvements and further research are presented.

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 176

EP - 179

JO - Journal of Law and Medicine

JF - Journal of Law and Medicine

SN - 1320-159X

IS - 2

M1 - 1320-159X

ER -

Forrester K, Duffield C, Roche M, Merrick E. Clinical handover: Can we afford the time? Journal of Law and Medicine. 2005;13(2):176-179. 1320-159X.