Sarah Fouquet

Meta-analyses of the effects of standardized handoff protocols on patient, provider, and organizational outcomes

Objective: The overall purpose was to understand the effects of handoff protocols using meta-analytic approaches. Background: Standardized protocols have been required by the Joint Commission, but meta-analytic integration of handoff protocol research has not been conducted. Method: The primary outcomes investigated were handoff information passed during transitions of care, patient outcomes, provider outcomes, and organizational outcomes. Sources included Medline, SAGE, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed, searched from the earliest date available through March 30th, 2015. Initially 4,556 articles were identified, with 4,520 removed. This process left a final set of 36 articles, all which included pre-/postintervention designs implemented in live clinical/hospital settings. We also conducted a moderation analysis based on the number of items contained in each protocol to understand if the length of a protocol led to systematic changes in effect sizes of the outcome variables. Results: Meta-analyses were conducted on 34,527 pre- and 30,072 postintervention data points. Results indicate positive effects on all four outcomes: handoff information (g = .71, 95% confidence interval [CI] [.63, .79]), patient outcomes (g = .53, 95% CI [.41, .65]), provider outcomes (g = .51, 95% CI [.41, .60]), and organizational outcomes (g = .29, 95% CI [.23, .35]). We found protocols to be effective, but there is significant publication bias and heterogeneity in the literature. Due to publication bias, we further searched the gray literature through greylit.org and found another 347 articles, although none were relevant to this research. Our moderation analysis demonstrates that for handoff information, protocols using 12 or more items led to a significantly higher proportion of information passed compared with protocols using 11 or fewer items. Further, there were numerous negative outcomes found throughout this meta-analysis, with trends demonstrating that protocols can increase the time for handover and the rate of errors of omission. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that handoff protocols tend to improve results on multiple levels, including handoff information passed and patient, provider, and organizational outcomes. These findings come with the caveat that publication bias exists in the literature on handoffs. Instances where protocols can lead to negative outcomes are also discussed. Application: Significant effects were found for protocols across provider types, regardless of expertise or area of clinical focus. It also appears that more thorough protocols lead to more information being passed, especially when those protocols consist of 12 or more items. Given these findings, publication bias is an apparent feature of this literature base. Recommendations to reduce the apparent publication bias in the field include changing the way articles are screened and published.

Development and implementation of a mobile device-based pediatric electronic decision support tool as part of a national practice standardization project

Abstract Objective Implementing evidence-based practices requires a multi-faceted approach. Electronic clinical decision support (ECDS) tools may encourage evidence-based practice adoption. However, data regarding the role of mobile ECDS tools in pediatrics is scant. Our objective is to describe the development, distribution, and usage patterns of a smartphone-based ECDS tool within a national practice standardization project. Materials and Methods We developed a smartphone-based ECDS tool for use in the American Academy of Pediatrics, Value in Inpatient Pediatrics Network project entitled “Reducing Excessive Variation in the Infant Sepsis Evaluation (REVISE).” The mobile application (app), PedsGuide, was developed using evidence-based recommendations created by an interdisciplinary panel. App workflow and content were aligned with clinical benchmarks; app interface was adjusted after usability heuristic review. Usage patterns were measured using Google Analytics. Results Overall, 3805 users across the United States downloaded PedsGuide from December 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, leading to 14 256 use sessions (average 3.75 sessions per user). Users engaged in 60 442 screen views, including 37 424 (61.8%) screen views that displayed content related to the REVISE clinical practice benchmarks, including hospital admission appropriateness (26.8%), length of hospitalization (14.6%), and diagnostic testing recommendations (17.0%). Median user touch depth was 5 [IQR 5]. Discussion We observed rapid dissemination and in-depth engagement with PedsGuide, demonstrating feasibility for using smartphone-based ECDS tools within national practice improvement projects. Conclusions ECDS tools may prove valuable in future national practice standardization initiatives. Work should next focus on developing robust analytics to determine ECDS tools’ impact on medical decision making, clinical practice, and health outcomes.

Going Mobile: Guiding the Development of Safer and More Effective Mobile Access in Healthcare

Smartphones and tablets continue to be weaved into our everyday lives. The proliferation of these technologies has also led to rapid growth in the number of medical technologies that are available. In particular, medical software offers a large variety of benefits, with specific applications serving as communication platforms, information references, health record databases, and much more. It is clear that medical software has myriad benefits, but it also presents many challenges, such as reliability, usability, and regulatory oversight. Thus, the objective of this discussion panel is to assemble professionals in the fields of healthcare, usability, and human-system integration to address the question: How can the sciences of human factors and medicine work together to influence the design and implementation of safe, effective mobile medical software?