No abstract

BackgroundStructured handover can reduce communication breakdowns and potential medical errors. In our emergency department (ED) we identified a safety risk due to variation in quality and content of overnight handovers between physicians.AimOur goal was to develop and implement a standardised ED-specific handover tool using quality improvement (QI) methodology. We aimed to increase the proportion of patients having adequate handover information conveyed at overnight shift change from a baseline of 50%–75% in 4 months.MethodsWe used published best practices, stakeholder input and local data to develop a tool customised for intershift ED handovers. Implementation methods included education, cognitive aids, policy change and plan-do-study-act cycles informed by end-user feedback. We monitored progress using direct observation convenience sampling.MeasuresOur outcome measure was proportion of adequate patient handovers (defined as >50% of handover components communicated per patient) per overnight handover session. Tool utilisation characteristics were used for process measurement, and time metrics for balancing measures. We report changes using statistical process control charts and descriptive statistics.ResultsWe observed 49 overnight handover sessions from 2017 to 2019, evaluating handovers of 850 patients. Our improvement target was met in 10 months (median=76.1%) and proportion of adequate handovers continued to improve to median=83.0% at the postimprovement audit. Written communication of handover information increased from a median of 19.2% to 68.7%. Handover time increased by median=31 s per patient. End-users subjectively reported improved communication quality and value for resident education.ConclusionsWe achieved sustained improvements in the amount of information communicated during physician ED handovers using established QI methodologies. Engaging stakeholders in handover tool customisation for local context was an important success factor. We believe this approach can be easily adopted by any ED.

Objectives Many patients discharged home from the emergency department (ED) require urgent outpatient consultation with a specialty service. We sought to identify the best- and worst-performing services with regard to time to outpatient consultation, the proportion of patients lost to follow-up, the rate of related return ED visits prior to consultation, and common strategies used by our top-performing clinics. Methods We conducted a health records review of The Ottawa Hospital ED visits during four 1-week periods. All consecutive adult outpatient consultation requests were included for chart review and were followed up to 12 months. Outcome measures included demographics, referral attendance rates, incomplete referrals, return ED visits, and time intervals. Services with at least 15 consultation requests were included for data analysis and qualitative mapping of their referral processes. Results Of the 963 patients who met inclusion criteria, 803 (83.4%) attended their appointment, while 160 (16.6%) were lost to follow-up. The overall median time to successful consultation was 9 days (IQR = 2–27). 92 (9.6%) patients returned to the ED with a related complaint. The top-performing clinics included ophthalmology, orthopedics, and thrombosis (median = 1, 8, 1 days; incomplete consultation = 3%, 4%, 6%; return ED visits = 0%, 6%, 2% respectively). The bottom-performing clinics included otorhinolaryngology, neurology, and gynecology (median = 47, 39, 27 days; incomplete consultation = 50%, 41%, 37%; return ED visits = 11%, 15%, 26%, respectively). Processes incorporated by top-performing clinics included reserving appointment slots for emergency referrals, structured referral forms, and centralized booking. Conclusions We found a substantial variability in both the waiting times and reliability of outpatient referrals from the ED. Top-performing clinics incorporate common referral processes.

to additional training. Our study emphasizes that our physicians have the skill set to identify and provide care for sepsis using their clinical judgment in cases that may not require protocolized based care.

No abstract