BackgroundThere is limited literature about physician handoffs between the intensive care unit (ICU) and the ward, and best practices have not been described. These patients are uniquely vulnerable given their medical complexity, diagnostic uncertainty and reduced monitoring intensity. We aimed to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU–ward handoffs across three teaching hospitals using multimodal methods: by identifying the handoff components involved in communication failures and describing common processes of patient transfer.MethodsWe conducted a study at three academic medical centres using two methods to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU–ward transfers: (1) an anonymous resident survey characterising handoff communication during ICU–ward transfer, and (2) comparison of process maps to identify similarities and differences between ICU–ward transfer processes across the three hospitals.ResultsOf the 295 internal medicine residents approached, 175 (59%) completed the survey. 87% of the respondents recalled at least one adverse event related to communication failure during ICU–ward transfer. 95% agreed that a well-structured handoff template would improve ICU–ward transfer. Rehabilitation needs, intravenous access/hardware and risk assessments for readmission to the ICU were the most frequently omitted or incorrectly communicated components of handoff notes. More than 60% of the respondents reported that notes omitted or miscommunicated pending results, active subspecialty consultants, nutrition and intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and healthcare decision-maker information at least twice per month. Despite variable process across the three sites, all process maps demonstrated flaws and potential for harm in critical steps of the ICU–ward transition.ConclusionIn this multisite study, despite significant process variation across sites, almost all resident physicians recalled an adverse event related to the ICU–ward handoff. Future work is needed to determine best practices for ICU–ward handoffs at academic medical centres.

Background Social media is an effective channel for the advancement of women physicians; however, its use by women in cardiology has not been systematically studied. Our study seeks to characterize the current Women in Cardiology Twitter network. Methods and Results Six women‐specific cardiology Twitter hashtags were analyzed: #ACCWIC (American College of Cardiology Women in Cardiology), #AHAWIC (American Heart Association Women in Cardiology), #ilooklikeacardiologist, #SCAIWIN (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Women in Innovations), #WomeninCardiology, and #WomeninEP (Women in Electrophysiology). Twitter data from 2016 to 2019 were obtained from Symplur Signals. Quantitative and descriptive content analyses were performed. The Women in Cardiology Twitter network generated 48 236 tweets, 266 180 903 impressions, and 12 485 users. Tweets increased by 706% (from 2083 to 16 780), impressions by 207% (from 26 755 476 to 82 080 472), and users by 440% (from 796 to 4300), including a 471% user increase internationally. The network generated 6530 (13%) original tweets and 43 103 (86%) amplification tweets. Most original and amplification tweets were authored by women (81% and 62%, respectively) and women physicians (76% and 52%, respectively), with an increase in original and amplification tweets authored by academic women physicians (98% and 109%, respectively) and trainees (390% and 249%, respectively) over time. Community building, professional development, and gender advocacy were the most common tweet contents over the study period. Community building was the most common tweet category for #ACCWIC, #AHAWIC, #ilooklikeacardiologist, #SCAIWIN, and #WomeninCardiology, whereas professional development was most common for #WomeninEP. Conclusions The Women in Cardiology Twitter network has grown immensely from 2016 to 2019, with women physicians as the driving contributors. This network has become an important channel for community building, professional development, and gender advocacy discussions in an effort to advance women in cardiology.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine cardiovascular care, with unclear impact on procedural deferrals and associated outcomes across diverse patient populations. Methods Cardiovascular procedures performed at 30 hospitals across six Western states in two large, non-profit healthcare systems (Providence St. Joseph Health and Stanford Healthcare) from December 2018-June 2020 were analyzed for changes over time. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared across pandemic phases with multivariate logistic regression. Results Among 36,125 procedures (69% percutaneous coronary intervention, 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 10% transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and 8% surgical aortic valve replacement), weekly volumes changed in two distinct phases after the initial inflection point on February 23, 2020: an initial period of significant deferral (COVID I: March 15 to April 11) followed by recovery (COVID II: April 12 onwards). Compared to pre-COVID, COVID I patients were less likely to be female (p=0.0003), older (p<0.0001), Asian or Black (p=0.02), or Medicare insured (p<0.0001), and COVID I procedures were higher acuity (p<0.0001), but not higher complexity. In COVID II, there was a trend towards more procedural deferral in regions with a higher COVID-19 burden (p=0.05). Compared to pre-COVID, there were no differences in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality during both COVID phases. Conclusions Significant decreases in cardiovascular procedural volumes occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic, with disproportionate impacts by race, gender, and age. These findings should inform our approach to future healthcare disruptions.

No abstract

No abstract