Background: Clinical handover between emergency medical services (EMS) and the hospital trauma team can be subject to errors that may negatively affect patient care. Thus far, there has been limited evaluation of the quality of EMS handover. As such, we sought to characterize handover practices from EMS to the trauma team, identify areas for improvement, and determine if there is a need for standardization of current handover practices. Aim Statement: Identify areas for improvement in handover from EMS to the trauma team, specifically examining handover content, structure, and discordances between different team members regarding handover expectations. Measures & Design: Data were prospectively collected over a nine week period by a trained observer at Canada's largest level one trauma centre. A randomized scheduled was used to capture a representative breadth of handovers. Data collected included outcome measures such as duration of handover, structure of the handover, and information shared, process measures such as questions and interruptions from the trauma team, and perceptions of the handover from nurses, trauma team leaders (TTLs) and EMS according to a bidirectional Likert scale. Evaluation/Results: Of 410 trauma team activations, 79 verbal handovers were observed. Information was often missing regarding airway (present 22%), breathing (54%), medications (59%), and allergies (54%). Handover structure lacked consistency beyond the order of identification and mechanism of injury. Only 28% of handovers had a dedicated question and answer period. Of all questions asked, 35% were questioning previously given information. EMS returned to categories of information unprompted in 84% of handovers. The majority of handovers (61%) involved parallel conversations between team members while EMS was speaking, which was associated with a greater number of interrupting questions from the trauma team (3.15 vs. 1.82, p =.001). There was a statistically significant disparity between the self-evaluation of EMS handovers and the perceived quality determined by nurses and trauma team leaders. Discussion/Impact: At our trauma centre, we have identified the need for handover standardization due to poor information content, a lack of structure and active listening, significant information repetition, and discordant expectations between EMS, nurses, and TTLs. We intend to use our results to guide the development of a co-constructed framework integrating the perspectives of all team members on the trauma team.

Introduction: When patients transition from long term care (LTC) to emergency departments (ED), communication among clinicians in different settings is often poor. We pilot tested a transfer form to facilitate communications of handover information among LTCs, emergency medical services (EMS), and EDs regarding LTC residents transitioning to and from the ED. We interpret implementation challenges in light of the “theoretical domains” implementation framework in order to produce lessons for future healthcare communication interventions. Methods: We provided setting specific training and a user guide to 13 participating sites, collected 90 forms to assess completion rates, and assessed perspectives on the form from 266 surveys of healthcare providers. Throughout the study, staff kept detailed notes on implementation of the form. We retrospectively categorized implementation challenges reported by survey respondents, and/or recorded in staff implementation notes, according to the theoretical domains framework. Results: The LTC patient transfer forms were used in 36.4% of transitions (90/247), and were completed most often by staff in the LTC (57/90, 63%). Survey results indicated that ED and EMS staff felt the information on the form was useful to them, although they rarely completed their sections of the form. Implementation challenges included low awareness/recognition of the form among healthcare providers, belief that the form distracted from patient care, lack of time for form completion, negative reinforcement for LTC staff (who saw little return for the time they invested in completing the form), and mistrust among clinicians who work in different settings. Conclusion: Future efforts to improve healthcare communications must be acceptable for all clinicians. Innovation should balance the workload required among sites/clinicians and the benefits that the intervention offers to sites/clinicians should be explicitly tracked and reported. For this intervention, more effort should be made to inform LTC sites that the transfer information they provide is useful for EMS and ED clinicians. Moreover, gaps in perspectives and lack of trust among clinicians who work in different settings must be recognized and addressed in any multi-site communication intervention.

Introduction: Emergency department handover is a high-risk period for patient safety. A recent study showed a decreased rate of preventable adverse events and errors after implementation of a resident hand-off bundle on pediatric inpatient wards. In a 2013 survey by the Canadian Associations of Internes and Residents, only 11% of residents in any discipline stated they received a formal teaching session on handover. Recently, the CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Framework has added safe and skillful transfer of patient care as a new proficiency within the collaborator role. We hypothesize that significant variation exists in the current delivery and evaluation of handover education in Canadian EM residencies. Methods: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional survey of Canadian residents enrolled in the three main training streams of Emergency Medicine (FRCP CCFP-EM, PEM). The primary outcome was to determine which educational modalities are used to teach and assess handover proficiency. Secondarily, we described current sign-over practices and perceived competency at patient handover. Results: 130 residents completed the survey (73% FRCP, 19% CCFP-EM, 8% PEM). 6% of residents were aware of handover proficiency objectives within their curriculum, while 15% acknowledged formal evaluation in this area. 98% of respondents were taught handover by observation of staff or residents on shift, while 55% had direct teaching on the job. Less than 10% of respondents received formal sessions in didactic lecture, small group or simulation formats. Evaluation of handover skills occurred primarily by on shift observation (100% of respondents), while 3% of residents had received assessment through simulation. Local centre handover practices were variable; less than half of residents used mnemonic tools, written or electronic adjuncts. Conclusion: Canadian EM residents receive variable and sparse formal training and assessment on emergency department handover. The majority of training occurs by on shift observation and few trainees receive instruction on objective tools or explicit patient care standards. There exists potential for further development of standardized objectives, utilization of other educational modalities and formal assessments to better prepare residents to conduct safer patient handoffs.

Introduction: Patient handoffs have been identified as the primary cause of error affecting patient safety. The lack of standardization - and the often-avoidable errors that occur as a result - profoundly affect patient care and emergency department (ED) administration. Our study set out to evaluate emergency doctors’ awareness of these safety concerns, as well as their satisfaction with handoff practices currently used in their respective EDs. We also aimed to identify the potential barriers to the use of a standardized approach to patient transition of care. Methods: Guided by a modified Delphi method, a 29-question survey was developed by a panel of experts on patient transition of care. A printed version of the survey was distributed to ED doctors attending a local emergency medicine conference. An electronic version was subsequently distributed to all ED doctors registered as members of our provincial professional organizations. Results: We achieved a 68% response rate. Amongst the 309 participants, 51% (95%CI 44-56%) acknowledged that handoffs between emergency doctors are a frequent cause of error related to patient care. Frequent interruptions (77% (95%CI 72-82%)) and heavy workloads (73% (95%CI 68-79%)) were identified as the main factors negatively influencing the quality of handoffs. Despite 61% (95%CI 56-68%) satisfaction with the currently employed methods, 74% (95%CI 68-79%) of the respondents believe that handoffs would benefit from standardization and 83% (95%CI 79-88%) are open to changing their current practices. In addition, 53% (95%CI 48-60%) believe that the tools used for transition of care can be improved. Apprehension regarding the increase of handoff burden (86% (95%CI 81-90%)) was identified as the primary barrier to the implementation of a standardized handoff protocol. Conclusion: Doctors are generally satisfied with current handoff practices used in the ED. Nevertheless, their awareness of the possible risks associated with transition of care may be driving their openness to adapting their practice, potentially towards a more standardized approach given the conceivable benefits to patient safety. In light of these results, we aim to develop a comprehensive, standardized handoff protocol, and to evaluate its applicability in the ED with a prospective study.

Introduction: Handovers in the ED are a high risk area for breakdown in team communication, discontinuity of patients’ clinical course, and potential medical errors. This is especially true for morning handovers at our center, when one single overnight MD working with limited resources hands over the entire ED to an oncoming day team of MDs and allied health professionals. We describe a quality improvement (QI) project to implement an inter-professional team approach during handovers. Methods: This prospective QI project took place at an academic tertiary care centre with >160,000 ED visits/yr. An expert working group identified key components of the ideal morning handover, and developed an intervention consisting of standardizing the “location”, “participants”, and “time” components of our handover processes. A research assistant directly observed all 8am handovers for 2 weeks pre- and 2 weeks post-intervention. Outcomes include participant attendance; # of beside RN issues proactively brought forward; frequency of new allied health consults and/or involvement triggered; # of physician interruptions; and time metrics. We report descriptive statistics. Results: During the study period a total of 308 individual patient handovers were observed [Pre:162, Post:146]. Average duration of total handover each morning decreased from 24.9min to 16.3min (p=0.051). Frequency of attendance at handovers increased for various allied health professionals, including care facilitators [Pre:35.7%; Post:91.7%, p=0.005], social workers [Pre:7.1%; Post:66.7%, p=0.003], geriatrics EM (GEM) RNs [Pre:64.3%; Post:83.3%, p=0.391], pharmacists [Pre:0.0%; Post:58.3%, p=0.001], and physiotherapists [Pre:0.0%; Post:58.3%, p=0.001]. Number of specific beside RN issues proactively brought forward increased [Pre:0; Post:4, p=0.049], while the number of physician interruptions during handover decreased [Pre:20; Post:0, p<0.0001]. Frequency of new allied health consults and/or involvement triggered as a result of handover participation increased from 6.8% to 13.7% (p=0.057). Conclusion: Implementation of a standardized team approach to morning handovers in the ED led to significant improvements in inter-professional contributions to patient care plans and overall efficiency. Future planned phases will build on this QI initiative by standardizing specific content of ED handovers.