Dataset Information

“Friction by Definition”: Conflict at Patient Handover Between Emergency and Internal Medicine Physicians at an Academic Medical Center

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patient handoffs from emergency physicians (EP) to internal medicine (IM) physicians may be complicated by conflict with the potential for adverse outcomes. The objective of this study was to identify the specific types of, and contributors to, conflict between EPs and IM physicians in this context.

Methods

We performed a qualitative focus group study using a constructivist grounded theory approach involving emergency medicine (EM) and IM residents and faculty at a large academic medical center. Focus groups assessed perspectives and experiences of EP/IM physician interactions related to patient handoffs. We interpreted data with the matrix analytic method.

Results

From May to December 2019, 24 residents (IM = 11, EM = 13) and 11 faculty (IM = 6, EM = 5) from the two departments participated in eight focus groups and two interviews. Two key themes emerged: 1) disagreements about disposition (ie, whether a patient needed to be admitted, should go to an intensive care unit, or required additional testing before transfer to the floor); and 2) contextual factors (ie, the request to discuss an admission being a primer for conflict; lack of knowledge of the other person and their workflow; high clinical workload and volume; and different interdepartmental perspectives on the benefits of a rapid emergency department workflow).

Conclusions

Causes of conflict at patient handover between EPs and IM physicians are related primarily to disposition concerns and contextual factors. Using theoretical models of task, process, and relationship conflict, we suggest recommendations to improve the EM/IM interaction to potentially reduce conflict and advance patient care.

SUBMITTER: Kanjee Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8597691 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patient outcomes with hospitalist care have been studied in many settings, yet little is known about how hospitalist care interacts with trainee care to affect patient outcomes in teaching hospitals.The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes between hospitalist-preceptors and hospitalists working alone (isolating the effect of housestaff involvement), and between hospitalist-preceptors and academician-preceptors (isolating the effect of attending type, given housestaff involvement).A four-year retrospective cohort study of patients (n?=?13,313) admitted to all internal medicine services at an academic medical center from July 2008 to June 2012.Using generalized estimating equations, we measured readmission within 30 days, hospital length of stay, cost of the index hospitalization, and cumulative cost including readmissions within 30 days.In the adjusted models, 30-day readmission odds were higher for academic-preceptors (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03?-?1.26]) and hospitalist-preceptors (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.002?-?1.21]) than for hospitalists working alone. Compared with hospitalists working alone, academic-preceptors were associated with shorter length of stay (mean difference, 0.27 days [95% CI, 0.18?-?0.38]), lower index hospitalization costs (mean difference, $386 [95% CI, $192?-?$576]), but similar cumulative inpatient costs within 30 days of discharge. Compared with hospitalists working alone, hospitalist-preceptors were associated with shorter length of stay (mean difference, 0.34 days [95% CI, 0.26?-?0.42]), lower index hospitalization cost (mean difference, $570 [95% CI, $378?-?$760]), and a trend toward lower cumulative cost (mean difference, $1347 [95% CI, $254?-?$2,816]).Preceptor-led medicine services were associated with more readmissions within 30 days, shorter lengths of stay, and lower index admission-associated costs. However, when considering cumulative hospitalization costs, patients discharged by academician-preceptors incurred the highest cost and hospitalist-preceptors incurred the lowest cost.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective was to assess anxiety and burnout levels, home life changes, and measures to relieve stress of U.S. academic emergency medicine (EM) physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic acceleration phase.MethodsWe sent a cross-sectional e-mail survey to all EM physicians at seven academic emergency departments. The survey incorporated items from validated stress scales and assessed perceptions and key elements in the following domains: numbers of suspected COVID-19 patients, availability of diagnostic testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety, severity of work burnout, identification of stressors, changes in home behaviors, and measures to decrease provider anxiety.ResultsA total of 426 (56.7%) EM physicians responded. On a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, and 7 = extremely), the median (interquartile range) reported effect of the pandemic on both work and home stress levels was 5 (4-6). Reported levels of emotional exhaustion/burnout increased from a prepandemic median (IQR) of 3 (2-4) to since the pandemic started a median of 4 (3-6), with a difference in medians of 1.8 (95% confidence interval = 1.7 to 1.9). Most physicians (90.8%) reported changing their behavior toward family and friends, especially by decreasing signs of affection (76.8%). The most commonly cited measures cited to alleviate stress/anxiety were increasing personal protective equipment (PPE) availability, offering rapid COVID-19 testing at physician discretion, providing clearer communication about COVID-19 protocol changes, and assuring that physicians can take leave for care of family and self.ConclusionsDuring the acceleration phase, the COVID-19 pandemic has induced substantial workplace and home anxiety in academic EM physicians, and their exposure during work has had a major impact on their home lives. Measures cited to decrease stress include enhanced availability of PPE, rapid turnaround testing at provider discretion, and clear communication about COVID-19 protocol changes.