Learning patient outcomes is recognized as crucial for ongoing refinement of clinical decision-making, but is often difficult in fragmented care with frequent handoffs. Data on resident habits of seeking outcome feedback after handoffs are lacking.
We performed a mixed-methods study including (1) an analysis of chart re-access rates after handoffs performed using access logs of the electronic health record (EHR); and (2) a web-based survey sent to internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) residents about their habits of and barriers to learning the outcomes of patients after they have handed them off to other teams.
Residents on ward rotations were often able to re-access charts of patients after handoffs, but those on EM or night admitting rotations did so <5% of the time. Among residents surveyed, only a minority stated that they frequently find out the outcomes of patients they have handed off, although learning outcomes was important to both their education and job satisfaction. Most were not satisfied with current systems of learning outcomes of patients after handoffs, citing too little time and lack of reliable patient tracking systems as the main barriers.
Despite perceived importance of learning outcomes after handoffs, residents cite difficulty with obtaining such information. Systematically providing feedback on patient outcomes would meet a recognized need among physicians in training.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: Dr. Shenvi and Ms. Feudjio Feupe were supported by the National Library of Medicine training grant T15LM011271, San Diego Biomedical Informatics Education and Research. Dr. El-Kareh was supported by K22LM011435-02, Funder Id: 10.13039/100000092, a career development award from the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
3. Lavoie CF, Schachter H, Stewart AT, McGowan J. Does outcome feedback make you a better emergency physician? a systematic review and research framework proposal. CJEM 2009;11:545–52.10.1017/S1481803500011829Search in Google Scholar
4. Rudolph JW, Morrison JB. Sidestepping superstitious learning, ambiguity, and other roadblocks: a feedback model of diagnostic problem solving. Am J Med 2008;121(5 Suppl):S34–7.10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.02.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Schmidt H, Norman G, Boshuizen H. A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: theory and implication [published erratum appears in Acad Med 1992;67:287]. Acad Med 1990;65:611–21.10.1097/00001888-199010000-00001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Schmidt HG, Rikers RM. How expertise develops in medicine: knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation. Med Educ 2007;41:1133–9.10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02915.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Van Eaton EG, Tarpley JL, Solorzano CC, Cho CS, Weber SM, Termuhlen PM. Resident education in 2011: three key challenges on the road ahead. Surgery 2011;149:465–73.10.1016/j.surg.2010.11.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. McNutt R, Johnson T, Kane J, Ackerman M, Odwazny R, Bardhan J. Cost and quality implications of discrepancies between admitting and discharge diagnoses. Qual Manag Health Care 2012;21:220–7.10.1097/QMH.0b013e31826d1ed2Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Singh H, Giardina TD, Forjuoh SN, Reis MD, Kosmach S, Khan MM, et al. Electronic health record-based surveillance of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:93–100.10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000304Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Brisson GE, Neely KJ, Tyler PD, Barnard C. Should medical students track former patients in the electronic health record? An emerging ethical conflict. Acad Med 2015;90:1020–4.10.1097/ACM.0000000000000633Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Dalseg TR, Calder LA, Lee C, Walker J, Frank JR. Outcome feedback within emergency medicine training programs: an opportunity to apply the theory of deliberate practice? CJEM 2015;17:367–73.10.1017/cem.2014.47Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Bowen JL, Ilgen JS, Irby DM, Ten Cate O, O’brien BC. “You have to know the end of the story”: motivations to follow up after transitions of clinical responsibility. Acad Med 2017;92: S48–54.10.1097/ACM.0000000000001919Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Lavoie CF, Plint AC, Clifford TJ, Gaboury I. “I never hear what happens, even if they die”: a survey of emergency physicians about outcome feedback. CJEM 2009;11:523–8.10.1017/S1481803500011787Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Team RC. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
25. National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
27. Narayana S, Rajkomar A, Harrison JD, Valencia V, Dhaliwal G, Ranji SR. What happened to my patient? an educational intervention to facilitate postdischarge patient follow-up. J Grad Med Educ 2017;9:627–33.10.4300/JGME-D-16-00846.1Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2018-0013).
Parts of this work were presented as a podium abstract presentation at the Diagnostic Error in Medicine Conference, September 2014, in Atlanta, GA, and at the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, November 2014, in Washington, DC, USA.
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston