Dataset Information

"Closing the loop": a mixed-methods study about resident learning from outcome feedback after patient handoffs.

ABSTRACT: Background Learning patient outcomes is recognized as crucial for ongoing refinement of clinical decision-making, but is often difficult in fragmented care with frequent handoffs. Data on resident habits of seeking outcome feedback after handoffs are lacking. Methods We performed a mixed-methods study including (1) an analysis of chart re-access rates after handoffs performed using access logs of the electronic health record (EHR); and (2) a web-based survey sent to internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) residents about their habits of and barriers to learning the outcomes of patients after they have handed them off to other teams. Results Residents on ward rotations were often able to re-access charts of patients after handoffs, but those on EM or night admitting rotations did so <5% of the time. Among residents surveyed, only a minority stated that they frequently find out the outcomes of patients they have handed off, although learning outcomes was important to both their education and job satisfaction. Most were not satisfied with current systems of learning outcomes of patients after handoffs, citing too little time and lack of reliable patient tracking systems as the main barriers. Conclusions Despite perceived importance of learning outcomes after handoffs, residents cite difficulty with obtaining such information. Systematically providing feedback on patient outcomes would meet a recognized need among physicians in training.

SUBMITTER: Shenvi EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6556111 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Closing the loop": a mixed-methods study about resident learning from outcome feedback after patient handoffs.

Shenvi Edna C EC Feupe Stephanie Feudjio SF Yang Hai H El-Kareh Robert R

Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) 20181101 4

Background Learning patient outcomes is recognized as crucial for ongoing refinement of clinical decision-making, but is often difficult in fragmented care with frequent handoffs. Data on resident habits of seeking outcome feedback after handoffs are lacking. Methods We performed a mixed-methods study including (1) an analysis of chart re-access rates after handoffs performed using access logs of the electronic health record (EHR); and (2) a web-based survey sent to internal medicine (IM) and em ...[more]

PMID: 30240357

Similar Datasets

Project description:Operating room to intensive care unit handoffs are high-risk events for critically ill patients. Studies in selected patient populations show that standardizing operating room to intensive care unit handoffs improves information exchange and decreases errors. To adapt these findings to mixed surgical populations, we propose to study the implementation of a standardized operating room to intensive care unit handoff process in two intensive care units currently without an existing standard process.The Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) study is a hybrid effectiveness- implementation trial of operating room to intensive care unit handoffs. We will use mixed methods to conduct a needs assessment of the current handoff process, adapt published handoff processes, and implement a new standardized handoff process in two academic intensive care units. Needs assessment: We will use non-participant observation to observe the current handoff process. Focus groups, interviews, and surveys of clinicians will elicit participants' impressions about the current process. Adaptation and implementation: We will adapt published standardized handoff processes using the needs assessment findings. We will use small group simulation to test the new process' feasibility. After simulation, we will incorporate the new handoff process into the clinical work of all providers in the study units.Using the same methods employed in the needs assessment phase, we will evaluate use of the new handoff process.The primary effectiveness outcome is the number of information omissions per handoff episode as compared to the pre-intervention period. Additional intervention outcomes include patient intensive care unit length of stay and intensive care unit mortality. The primary implementation outcome is acceptability of the new process. Additional implementation outcomes include feasibility, fidelity and sustainability.The HATRICC study will examine the effectiveness and implementation of a standardized operating room to intensive care unit handoff process. Findings from this study have the potential to improve healthcare communication and outcomes for critically ill patients.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02267174. Date of registration October 16, 2014.

Project description:BackgroundWhile concerns remain regarding Electronic Medical Records (EMR) use impeding doctor-patient communication, resident and faculty patient perspectives post-widespread EMR adoption remain largely unexplored.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe patient perspectives of outpatient resident and faculty EMR use and identify positive and negative EMR use examples to promote optimal utilization.DesignThis was a prospective mixed-methods study.ParticipantsInternal medicine faculty and resident patients at the University of Chicago's primary care clinic participated in the study.ApproachIn 2013, one year after EMR implementation, telephone interviews were conducted with patients using open-ended and Likert style questions to elicit positive and negative perceptions of EMR use by physicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively to develop a coding classification. Satisfaction with physician EMR use was examined using bivariate statistics.ResultsIn total, 108 interviews were completed and analyzed. Two major themes were noted: (1) Clinical Functions of EMR and (2) Communication Functions of EMR; as well as six subthemes: (1a) Clinical Care (i.e., clinical efficiency), (1b) Documentation (i.e., proper record keeping and access), (1c) Information Access, (1d) Educational Resource, (2a) Patient Engagement and (2b) Physical Focus (i.e., body positioning). Overall, 85 % (979/1154) of patient perceptions of EMR use were positive, with the majority within the "Clinical Care" subtheme (n?=?218). Of negative perceptions, 66 % (115/175) related to the "Communication Functions" theme, and the majority of those related to the "Physical Focus" subtheme (n?=?71). The majority of patients (90 %, 95/106) were satisfied with physician EMR use: 59 % (63/107) reported the computer had a positive effect on their relationship and only 7 % (8/108) reported the EMR made it harder to talk with their doctors.ConclusionsDespite concerns regarding EMRs impeding doctor-patient communication, patients reported largely positive perceptions of the EMR with many patients reporting high levels of satisfaction. Future work should focus on improving doctors "physical focus" when using the EMR to redirect towards the patient.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To develop outcome measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience. DESIGN:Mixed methods, including qualitative interviews and data extraction from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SETTING:Two university-teaching NHS hospitals and three district NHS hospitals in the South West and Midlands regions of England. PARTICIPANTS:Sixty-four patients and 15 healthcare professionals from abdominal general surgical specialities and obstetrics (caesarean section). METHODS:Measures were developed according to standard guidelines to identify issues relevant to patients' experiences of surgical wounds and dressings, including analysis of existing RCT outcomes and semi-structured interviews. These were written into provisional questionnaire items for a single outcome measure. Cognitive interviews with patients and healthcare professionals assessed face validity, acceptability and relevance. Findings from interviews were regularly shared with the study team who suggested amendments to modify and reword items to improve understanding before further iterative testing with patients and healthcare professionals. RESULTS:Analyses of existing RCT outcomes and interviews produced a total of 69 issues. Pretesting and iterative revision established the need for two separate measures. One measure addresses healthcare professionals' experience of wound management in two key areas: exudate and its impact, and allergic reactions to the dressing. The other measure addresses patients' experience of wounds in seven key areas: wound comfort, dressing removal, dressings to protect the wound, impact on daily activities, ease of movement, anxiety about the wound and satisfaction with dressing. Each measure took less than five?min to complete and both were understood and acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION:This in-depth study has developed two measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience. Further work to test their validity, reliability and application to other settings is now required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:HTA - 12/200/04; Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the acceptability and validity of two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for adult acne, comparing them to the validated Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) measure.DesignMixed-methods validation study.SettingParticipants were recruited by (1) mail-out through primary care if they had ever consulted for acne and received a prescription for acne treatment within the last 6 months, (2) opportunistically in secondary care and (3) poster advertisement in community venues.Participants221 (204 quantitative and 17 qualitative) participants with acne, aged 18-50 years.Outcome measuresQuantitative sub-study participants completed Acne-QoL, Skindex-16 and Comprehensive Acne Quality of Life Scale (CompAQ) at baseline, 24 hours and 6 weeks. Qualitative sub-study participants took part in cognitive think-aloud interviews, while completing the same measures. Transcribed audio recordings were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsQuantitative analyses suggested high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.74-0.96) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient values 0.88-0.97) for both questionnaires. Both scales showed floor effects on some subdomains. Skindex-16 and CompAQ showed good evidence of construct validity when compared with Acne-QoL with Spearman's correlation coefficients 0.54-0.81, and good repeatability over 24 hours.Qualitative data uncovered wide-ranging views regarding usability and acceptability. Interviewees held strong but differing views about layout, question/response wording, redundant/similar questions and guidance notes. Similarly, interviewees differed in perceptions of acceptability of the different scales, particularly on relatability of questions and emotive reactions to scales.ConclusionsAll PROMs performed well in statistical analyses. No PROM showed superior usability and acceptability in the qualitative study. Any PROM should be acceptable for further research in adult acne but researchers should consider the different domains and whether they will measure only facial or facial and trunk acne before making a selection. A new PROM or further evaluation of novel PROMs may be beneficial.

Project description:New models of primary care include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote patient-centered care. PROMs provide information on patient functional status and well-being, can be used to enhance care quality, and are proposed for use in assessing performance. Our objective was to identify a short list of candidate PROMs for use in primary care practice and to serve as a basis for performance measures (PMs). We used qualitative and quantitative methods to identify relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for use in performance measurement (PRO-PM) and their associated PROMs. We collected data from key informant groups: patients (n = 13; one-on-one and group interviews; concept saturation analysis), clinical thought leaders (n = 9; group discussions; thematic analysis), primary care practices representatives (n = 37; six focus groups; thematic analysis), and primary care payer representatives (n = 10; 12-question survey; frequencies of responses). We merged the key informant group information with findings from environmental literature scans. We conducted a targeted evidence review of measurement properties for candidate PROMs. We used a scoping review and key informant groups to identify PROM evaluation criteria, which were linked to the National Quality Forum measure evaluation criteria. We developed a de novo schema to score candidate PROMs against our criteria. We identified four PRO domains and 10 candidate PROMs: 3 for depressive symptoms, 2 for physical function, 3 for self-efficacy, 2 for ability to participate. Five PROMs met ≥ 70% of the evidence criteria for three PRO domains: PHQ-9 or PROMIS Depression (depression), PF-10 or PROMIS-PF (physical functioning), and PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Treatments and Medications (self-efficacy). The PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities met 68% of our criteria and might be considered for inclusion. Existing evidence and key informant data identified 5 candidate PROMs to use in primary care. These instruments can be used to develop PRO-PMs.

Project description:BackgroundThird sector organisations such as charities and community groups are using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) at an aggregated service level to demonstrate their impact to commissioners to generate or retain funding. Despite this motivation, organisations can struggle with implementing PROMs. Previous studies have identified facilitators including organisations using an appropriate measure, co-producing the PROMs process with staff, and investing resources to support the use of measures. However, to date no studies have applied this learning to third sector organisations to evaluate whether taking an evidence-informed implementation approach improves the use of PROMs.MethodsA Community-Based Participatory Research approach was used which involved university-based researchers supporting two third sector organisations to implement PROMs. The researchers provided evidence-informed advice and training. The organisations were responsible for implementing PROMs. The researchers evaluated implementation through a mixed methods approach including five key informant interviews, four evaluation groups and analysis of collected PROMs data (n = 313).ResultsBoth third sector organisations faced considerable constraints in incorporating known facilitators and addressing barriers. The organisations involved staff in choosing an acceptable measure. However, competing priorities including external pressures to use specific PROMs, busy workloads and staff opinions created challenges to using measures. Investment of time and energy into developing an outcomes-based organisational culture was key to enable the prioritisation of PROMs. For example, discussing PROMs in supervision so that they were viewed as part of people's job roles. Organisations found that implementation took several years and was disrupted by other pressures.ConclusionsWhilst organisations were motivated to implement PROMs to obtain or retain funding, they faced considerable practical and ideological challenges. Consequently, some stakeholders felt that alternative methods to measuring impact could potentially be more feasible than PROMs.

Dataset Information

"Closing the loop": a mixed-methods study about resident learning from outcome feedback after patient handoffs.

Publications

"Closing the loop": a mixed-methods study about resident learning from outcome feedback after patient handoffs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets