• Jesse Clanton, Aimee Gardner, Michael Subichin, Patrick McAlvanah, William Hardy, Amar Shah, and Joel Porter.
• Summa Akron City Hospital, Department of Surgery, USA. Electronic address: jclanton82@gmail.com.
• Am. J. Surg. 2017 Feb 1; 213 (2): 299-306.

BackgroundAs residency work hour restrictions have tightened, transitions of care have become more frequent. Many institutions dedicate significant time and resources to patient handoffs despite the fact that the ideal method is relatively unknown. We sought to compare the effect of a rigorous formal handoff approach to a minimized but focused handoff process on patient outcomes.MethodsA randomized prospective trial was conducted at a large teaching hospital over ten months. Patients were assigned to services employing either formal or focused handoffs. Residents were trained on handoff techniques and then observed by trained researchers. Outcome data including mortality, negative events, adverse events, and length of stay were collected and compared between formal and focused handoff groups using t-tests and a multivariate regression analysis.ResultsA total of 5157 unique patient-admissions were stratified into the two study groups. Focused handoffs were significantly shorter and included fewer patients (mean 6.3 patients discussed over 6.7 min vs. 35.2 patients over 20.6 min, both p < 0.001). Adverse events occurred during 16.7% of patient admissions. While overall length of stay was slightly shorter in the formal handoff group (5.50 days vs 5.88 days, p = 0.024) in univariate analysis only, there were no significant differences in patient outcomes between the two handoff methods (all p > 0.05).ConclusionsThis large randomized trial comparing two contrasting handoff techniques demonstrated no clinically significant differences in patient outcomes. A minimalistic handoff process may save time and resources without negatively affecting patient outcomes.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

21 keywords...

hide…