Interfacility Referral Communication for PICU Transfer
Caitlin K Thirnbeck,Elizabeth T Espinoza,Elizabeth A Beaman,Alexis L Rozen,Kimberly C Dukes,Hardeep Singh,Loreen A Herwaldt,Christopher P Landrigan,Heather Schacht Reisinger,Christina L Cifra,Caitlin K. Thirnbeck,Elizabeth T. Espinoza,Elizabeth A. Beaman,Alexis L. Rozen,Kimberly C. Dukes,Loreen A. Herwaldt,Christopher P. Landrigan,Christina L. Cifra
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/pcc.0000000000003479
2024-03-14
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
Abstract:Objectives: For patients requiring transfer to a higher level of care, excellent interfacility communication is essential. Our objective was to characterize verbal handoffs for urgent interfacility transfers of children to the PICU and compare these characteristics with known elements of high-quality intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs. Design: Mixed methods retrospective study of audio-recorded referral calls between referring clinicians and receiving PICU physicians for urgent interfacility PICU transfers. Setting: Academic tertiary referral PICU. Patients: Children 0–18 years old admitted to a single PICU following interfacility transfer over a 4-month period (October 2019 to January 2020). Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: We reviewed interfacility referral phone calls for 49 patients. Referral calls between clinicians lasted a median of 9.7 minutes (interquartile range, 6.8–14.5 min). Most referring clinicians provided information on history (96%), physical examination (94%), test results (94%), and interventions (98%). Fewer clinicians provided assessments of illness severity (87%) or code status (19%). Seventy-seven percent of referring clinicians and 6% of receiving PICU physicians stated the working diagnosis. Only 9% of PICU physicians summarized information received. Interfacility handoffs usually involved: 1) indirect references to illness severity and diagnosis rather than explicit discussions, 2) justifications for PICU admission, 3) statements communicating and addressing uncertainty, and 4) statements indicating the referring hospital’s reliance on PICU resources. Interfacility referral communication was similar to intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs with some key differences: 1) use of contextual information for appropriate PICU triage, 2) difference in expertise between communicating clinicians, and 3) reliance of referring clinicians and PICU physicians on each other for accurate information and medical/transport guidance. Conclusions: Interfacility PICU referral communication shared characteristics with intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs; however, communication did not adhere to known elements of high-quality handovers. Structured tools specific to PICU interfacility referral communication must be developed and investigated for effectiveness in improving communication and patient outcomes.
pediatrics,critical care medicine