Patient Hand-Off iNitiation and Evaluation (PHONE) study: A randomized trial of patient handoff methods

Jesse Clanton, Aimee Gardner, Michael Subichin, Patrick McAlvanah, William Hardy, Amar Shah, Joel Porter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background As 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. Methods A 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. Results A 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). Conclusions This 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)299-306
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgery
Volume213
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Fingerprint

Patient Handoff
Patient Transfer
Patient Admission
Internship and Residency
Teaching Hospitals
Length of Stay
Multivariate Analysis
Regression Analysis
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Medical errors
  • Patient handoff
  • Patient outcomes
  • Patient safety
  • Physician communication
  • Sign-out

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Patient Hand-Off iNitiation and Evaluation (PHONE) study : A randomized trial of patient handoff methods. / Clanton, Jesse; Gardner, Aimee; Subichin, Michael; McAlvanah, Patrick; Hardy, William; Shah, Amar; Porter, Joel.

In: American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 213, No. 2, 01.02.2017, p. 299-306.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Clanton, Jesse ; Gardner, Aimee ; Subichin, Michael ; McAlvanah, Patrick ; Hardy, William ; Shah, Amar ; Porter, Joel. / Patient Hand-Off iNitiation and Evaluation (PHONE) study : A randomized trial of patient handoff methods. In: American Journal of Surgery. 2017 ; Vol. 213, No. 2. pp. 299-306.
@article{03d75d5a68384f62ba0523b0e01067f8,
title = "Patient Hand-Off iNitiation and Evaluation (PHONE) study: A randomized trial of patient handoff methods",
abstract = "Background As 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. Methods A 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. Results A 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). Conclusions This 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.",
keywords = "Medical errors, Patient handoff, Patient outcomes, Patient safety, Physician communication, Sign-out",
author = "Jesse Clanton and Aimee Gardner and Michael Subichin and Patrick McAlvanah and William Hardy and Amar Shah and Joel Porter",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.10.015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "213",
pages = "299--306",
journal = "American Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0002-9610",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient Hand-Off iNitiation and Evaluation (PHONE) study

T2 - A randomized trial of patient handoff methods

AU - Clanton, Jesse

AU - Gardner, Aimee

AU - Subichin, Michael

AU - McAlvanah, Patrick

AU - Hardy, William

AU - Shah, Amar

AU - Porter, Joel

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - Background As 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. Methods A 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. Results A 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). Conclusions This 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.

AB - Background As 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. Methods A 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. Results A 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). Conclusions This 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.

KW - Medical errors

KW - Patient handoff

KW - Patient outcomes

KW - Patient safety

KW - Physician communication

KW - Sign-out

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008147846&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008147846&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.10.015

DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.10.015

M3 - Article

C2 - 27998549

AN - SCOPUS:85008147846

VL - 213

SP - 299

EP - 306

JO - American Journal of Surgery

JF - American Journal of Surgery

SN - 0002-9610

IS - 2

ER -