• Leora I Horwitz, David Rand, Paul Staisiunas, Peter H Van Ness, Katy L B Araujo, Stacy S Banerjee, Jeanne M Farnan, and Vineet M Arora.
• Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8093, USA. leora.horwitz@yale.edu
• J Hosp Med. 2013 Apr 1; 8 (4): 191200191-200.

BackgroundIncreasing frequency of shift-to-shift handoffs coupled with regulatory requirements to evaluate handoff quality make a handoff evaluation tool necessary.ObjectiveTo develop a handoff evaluation tool.DesignTool development.SettingTwo academic medical centers.SubjectsNurse practitioners, medicine housestaff, and hospitalist attendings.InterventionConcurrent peer and external evaluations of shift-to-shift handoffs.MeasurementsThe Handoff CEX (clinical evaluation exercise) consists of 6 subdomains and 1 overall assessment, each scored from 1 to 9, where 1 to 3 is unsatisfactory and 7 to 9 is superior. We assessed range of scores, performance among subgroups, internal consistency, and agreement among types of raters.ResultsWe conducted 675 evaluations of 97 unique individuals during 149 handoff sessions. Scores ranged from unsatisfactory to superior in each domain. The highest rated domain for handoff providers was professionalism (median: 8; interquartile range [IQR]: 7-9); the lowest was content (median: 7; IQR: 6-8). Scores at the 2 institutions were similar, and scores did not differ significantly by training level. Spearman correlation coefficients among the CEX subdomains for provider scores ranged from 0.71 to 0.86, except for setting (0.39-0.40). Third-party external evaluators consistently gave lower marks for the same handoff than peer evaluators did. Weighted kappa scores for provider evaluations comparing external evaluators to peers ranged from 0.28 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01, 0.56) for setting to 0.59 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.80) for organization.ConclusionsThis handoff evaluation tool was easily used by trainees and attendings, had high internal consistency, and performed similarly across institutions. Because peers consistently provided higher scores than external evaluators, this tool may be most appropriate for external evaluation.Copyright © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine.

15 keywords...

hide…