One chance to get it right: improving clinical handovers for better symptom control at the end of life

I-PASS-Based Handoff Pilot in a High-Volume Urban Hospital: Benefits and Barriers for Hospitalists

Background The I-PASS bundle is a standardized care handoff associated with improved outcomes that is widely used in residency training. Sustainable use of I-PASS bundle components among attending hospital medicine providers merits further study. After we implemented a handoffs pilot process including written handoffs and Epic chat message (surrogate for verbal handoff) based on the I-PASS protocol, providers reported high levels of satisfaction. However, the pilot tool was utilized infrequently, and use ceased after the pilot. Methodology We utilized qualitative methods to assess attending physicians' and Advanced Practice Providers' perceptions to understand discrepancies between perceived utility and actual use. From February to March 2022, we interviewed 13 attending hospitalist physicians (n = 11) and Advanced Practice Providers (n = 2) individually or in homogenous focus groups; we transcribed recordings for qualitative coding (interrater agreement was κ = 0.82). We coded and analyzed the textual data via the specific concerns participants shared in the interviews and focus groups. Results Participants felt that while the I-PASS-based tool was suboptimal, the pilot raised overall awareness and use of handoff processes. They recommended that feasible handoff processes provide necessary information quickly for cross-cover providers, but do not require similar details for stable patients. Most participants reported that existing electronic medical record chat functions along with notes were adequate and more efficient. They also recommended standardizing format and processes; obtaining buy-in from all patient care providers; education on efficient use of tools; and formal, explicit expectations that providers complete handoffs. Conclusions Handoffs are an important component of patient safety measures. While they perceived the I-PASS-based tool to be suboptimal in several aspects, participants felt that the handoff quality improvement pilot raised overall awareness and use of handoff processes, which they felt was important for patient safety. Implementation of I-PASS bundle components may require contextual adaptation.

Physician inpatient handoffs-Patient and physician outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prior reviews have shown that interventions to improve inpatient handoffs are inconsistently associated with improvement in patient outcomes. This systematic review examines the effectiveness of inpatient handoff interventions on outcomes affecting patients and physicians, including objective measures when reported (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022309326).

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched on January 13th, 2022. We included experimental or quasi-experimental studies that examined handoff communication between inpatient physicians and reported patient clinical, patient experiential, physician experiential, or cost and utilization outcomes. Studies were excluded if they examined handoffs between facilities or levels of care, or only reported subjective measures of patient safety or physician experience. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-1 and RoB-2 tools.

RESULTS

Of the 42 included studies, six were randomized controlled trials. Most studies were conducted at academic centers (67%) and involved only residents (64%). An educational intervention was used in 52% of studies and a structural intervention was used in 43%, with 9% using both. Adverse events were significantly improved in three of 16 studies, medical errors in three of seven studies, and length of stay in three of seven studies. Four studies examined mortality, and none reported a significant improvement. Studies that used both structural and educational components reported significant improvements more frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature is mixed on the impact of efforts to improve handoffs, though there are few randomized trials. Few studies reported patient experiential or cost/utilization outcomes, or involved hospitalist physicians, which represent potential areas for future research.

The quality of care delivered to residents in long-term care in Australia: an indicator-based review of resident records (CareTrack Aged study)

BACKGROUND

This study estimated the prevalence of evidence-based care received by a population-based sample of Australian residents in long-term care (LTC) aged ≥ 65 years in 2021, measured by adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations.

METHODS

Sixteen conditions/processes of care amendable to estimating evidence-based care at a population level were identified from prevalence data and CPGs. Candidate recommendations (n = 5609) were extracted from 139 CPGs which were converted to indicators. National experts in each condition rated the indicators via the RAND-UCLA Delphi process. For the 16 conditions, 236 evidence-based care indicators were ratified. A multi-stage sampling of LTC facilities and residents was undertaken. Trained aged-care nurses then undertook manual structured record reviews of care delivered between 1 March and 31 May 2021 (our record review period) to assess adherence with the indicators.

RESULTS

Care received by 294 residents with 27,585 care encounters in 25 LTC facilities was evaluated. Residents received care for one to thirteen separate clinical conditions/processes of care (median = 10, mean = 9.7). Adherence to evidence-based care indicators was estimated at 53.2% (95% CI: 48.6, 57.7) ranging from a high of 81.3% (95% CI: 75.6, 86.3) for Bladder and Bowel to a low of 12.2% (95% CI: 1.6, 36.8) for Depression. Six conditions (skin integrity, end-of-life care, infection, sleep, medication, and depression) had less than 50% adherence with indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study of adherence to evidence-based care for people in LTC using multiple conditions and a standardised method. Vulnerable older people are not receiving evidence-based care for many physical problems, nor care to support their mental health nor for end-of-life care. The six conditions in which adherence with indicators was less than 50% could be the focus of improvement efforts.

A Targeted Discharge Pathway to Reduce Hospital Readmission and Dying in Hospital in Cancer Patients at the End of Life

OBJECTIVES

There is a need for better information exchange between primary and secondary care healthcare professionals in cancer patients with limited life expectancy, most of whom prefer to be at home but are admitted frequently at the end of life (EoL). We conducted a file search to assess this among our patients and developed a discharge pathway to decrease readmission rate and dying in hospital.

DATA SOURCES

We performed an in-depth file search among 150 patients who died within 1 month after hospital admission (July 2013 to January 2014); 60 were admitted once, and 90 were admitted twice or more. Mean time spent in hospital at EoL was 12 days; 37% died in hospital, and 49% died at home. We included 31 admitted cancer patients at the EoL in whom home-discharge was planned for the intervention (February 2017 to December 2018). Median survival was 24 days, time spent in hospital decreased from 15.5 to 2.5 days, and number of readmissions fell from 2.8 to 0.57. One patient (3.1%) died in hospital, and 77% died at home. And 78% of general practitioners found the provided information useful.

CONCLUSION

A proactive discharge pathway may reduce hospital readmission rates, time spent in hospital, and in-hospital death.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Ever more patients with complex care needs at the EoL are being discharged early. Being informed about patients' wishes, preferences, and treatment options for symptom management at home is essential for doctors and nurses in primary care. A systematic discharge pathway can be useful for information transfer when admitted patients are discharged home.

Validation of 'Care Of the Dying Evaluation' (CODETM) within an international study exploring bereaved relatives' perceptions about quality of care in the last days of life

CONTEXT

Assessing quality of care provided during the dying phase using validated tools aids quality assurance and recognizes unmet need.

OBJECTIVE

To assess construct validity and internal consistency of 'Care Of the Dying Evaluation' (CODE^TM) within an international context.

METHODS

Post-bereavement survey (August 2017 to September 2018) using CODE^TM. Respondents were next-of-kin to adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with cancer who had an 'expected' death within 22 study site hospitals in 7 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom, Uruguay. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (EFA and CFA) were conducted, and internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach alpha (α). Known group validity was assessed by ability to discriminate quality of care based in place (Palliative Care Units (PCUs)) and country (Poland, where most deaths were in PCUs) of care. Differences were quantified using effect sizes (ES).

RESULTS

A 914 CODE^TM questionnaires completed (54% response rate). 527 (58%) male deceased patients; 610 (67%) next-of-kin female who were most commonly the 'spouse/partner' (411, 45%). EFA identified 4 factors: 'Overall care,' 'Communication and support,' 'Trust, respect and dignity,' and 'Symptom management' with good reliability scores (α = 0.628 - 0.862). CFA confirmed the 4-factor model; these were highly correlated and a bifactor model showed acceptable fit. The ES for quality of care in PCU's was 0.727; ES for Poland was 0.657, supporting the sensitivity of CODE^TM to detect differences.

CONCLUSION

Within an international context, good evidence supports the validity and reliability of CODE^TM for assessing the quality of care provided in the last days of life.