Aims To synthesize outcomes from research on handoffs to guide future computerization of the process on medical and surgical units. Background Handoffs can create important information gaps, omissions and errors in patient care. Authors call for the computerization of handoffs; however, a synthesis of the literature is not yet available that might guide computerization. Data sources PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Scopus and a handoff database from Cohen and Hilligoss. Design Integrative literature review. Review methods This integrative review included studies from 1980–March 2011 in peer‐reviewed journals. Exclusions were studies outside medical and surgical units, handoff education and nurses' perceptions. Results The search strategy yielded a total of 247 references; 81 were retrieved, read and rated for relevance and research quality. A set of 30 articles met relevance criteria. Conclusion Studies about handoff functions and rituals are saturated topics. Verbal handoffs serve important functions beyond information transfer and should be retained. Greater consideration is needed on analysing handoffs from a patient‐centred perspective. Handoff methods should be highly tailored to nurses and their contextual needs. The current preference for bedside handoffs is not supported by available evidence. The specific handoff structure for all units may be less important than having a structure for contextually based handoffs. Research on pertinent information content for contextually based handoffs is an urgent need. Without it, handoff computerization is not likely to be successful. Researchers need to use more sophisticated experimental research designs, control for individual and unit differences and improve sampling frames.

Patient care handoffs are cognitively intense activities, especially on medical and surgical units where nurses synthesize information across an average of four to five patients every shift. The objective of this study was to examine handoffs and nurses' use of computerized patient summary reports in an electronic health record after computerized provider order entry (CPOE) was installed. We observed and audio taped 93 patient handoffs on 25 occasions on 5 acute care units in 2 different facilities sharing a vendor's electronic health record. We found that the computerized patient summary report and the electronic health record were minimally used during the handoff and that the existing patient summary reports did not provide adequate cognitive support for nurses. The patient summary reports were incomplete, rigid and did not offer "at a glance" information, or help nurses encode information. We make recommendations about a redesign of patient summary reports and technology to support the cognitive needs of nurses during handoffs at the change of shift.

Little evidence is available about nurses' use of electronic tools during handoffs. This qualitative study explored information management and use of electronic tools during nursing handoffs. The sample included 93 handoffs by 26 nurses on 5 medical/surgical units in 2 western hospitals with a robust electronic health record (EHR). Data collection included audiotaping handoffs, semi-structured interviews, observations, and fieldnotes. The dataset was inductively coded into 33 categories and 5 themes: good nurse expectations for handoffs, paper forms are best, information at a glance, only pertinent information please, and information tools that work. Two-thirds of the nurses abandoned use of the leadership-endorsed electronic handoff form, preferring personal paper forms. The findings suggest effective electronic solutions will require extensive contextually-based information, information integrated across EHR modules and portable, electronic support throughout shifts. This is a call to action for leaders and informaticists as they select and design future electronic tools.

IMPORTANCE Although pain is among the most common symptoms reported by patients, primary care practitioners (PCPs) face substantial challenges identifying and assessing pain.OBJECTIVE To evaluate a 2-step process for chronic pain screening and follow-up in primary care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA cross-sectional study of patients with a primary care visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, was conducted at a statewide, multisite federally qualified health center. Participants included 68 PCPs and 58 medical assistants from 13 sites who implemented the screening process in primary care, and 38 866 patients aged 18 years or older with a primary care visit during that time.EXPOSURES Single-question assessment of pain frequency, followed by a 3-question PEG (pain, enjoyment of life, general activity) functional assessment for patients with chronic pain. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESAdherence to a 2-step chronic pain screening and PEG process, proportion of patients with positive screening results, mean PEG pain severity greater than or equal to 7, and documented chronic painful condition diagnosis in patient's electronic health record between 1 year before and 90 days after screening. RESULTS Of 38 866 patients with a primary care visit, 31 600 patients (81.3%) underwent screening. Mean (SD) age was 46.2 (15.4) years, and most were aged 35 to 54 years (12 987 [41.1%]), female (18 436 [58.3%]), Hispanic (14 809 [46.9%]), and English-speaking (22 519 [71.3%]), and had Medicaid insurance (18 442 [58.4%]). A total of 10 262 participants (32.5%) screened positive and, of these, 9701 (94.5%) completed the PEG questionnaire. PEG responses indicated severe pain interference with activities of daily living (PEG Ն7) in 5735 (59.1%) participants. A chronic painful condition had not been diagnosed in 4257 (43.9%) patients in the year before screening. A new chronic painful condition was diagnosed at screening or within 90 days in 2250 (52.9%) patients.Care teams found the workflow acceptable, but cited lengthy administration time, challenges with comprehension of the PEG questions, and limited comprehensiveness as implementation barriers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEA systematic, 2-step process for chronic pain screening and functional assessment in primary care appeared to identify patients with previously undocumented chronic pain and was feasible to implement. Patient-provided information on the frequency of pain, pain level, and pain interference can help improve the assessment and monitoring of pain in primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Opioid use and misuse are prevalent and remain a national crisis. This study identified beneficiary characteristics associated with filling opioid prescriptions, variation in opioid dosing, and opioid use with average daily doses (ADDs) equal to 120 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) or more in the 100% Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) population. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS In a cohort of FFS beneficiaries with 12 months of Medicare Part D coverage in 2016, we examined patient factors associated with filling an opioid prescription (n = 20,880,490) and variation in ADDs (n = 7,325,031) in a two‐part model. Among those filling opioids, we also examined the probability of ADD equal to 120 MMEs or more via logistic regression. RESULTS About 35% of FFS beneficiaries had one or more opioid prescription fills in 2016 and 1.5% had ADDs equal to 120 MMEs or more. Disability‐eligible beneficiaries and beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions were more likely to fill opioids, to have higher ADDs or were more likely to have ADD equal to 120 MMEs or more. Beneficiaries with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were more likely to fill opioids (odds ratio (OR) = 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.46–1.47), have higher ADDs (rate ratio = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.06–1.06) when filled and were more likely to have ADD equal to 120 MMEs or more (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.21–1.24). Finally, black and Hispanic beneficiaries were less likely to fill opioids, had lower overall doses and were less likely to have ADDs equal to 120 MMEs or more compared to white beneficiaries. CONCLUSION Several beneficiary subgroups have underappreciated risk of adverse events associated with ADD equal to 120 MMEs or more that may benefit from opioid optimization interventions that balance pain management and adverse event risk, especially beneficiaries with COPD who are at risk for respiratory depression.

The "hidden lives" - the life cycle and evolution - of paper brains have implications for the design of successful electronic tools to support nursing practice, including handoff. Nurses' paper brains provide cognitive support beyond the context of handoff. Information retrieval during handoff is undoubtedly an important function of nurses' paper brains, but tools designed to standardize handoff communication without accounting for cognitive needs during all phases of the paper brain life cycle or the ability to evolve with changes to those cognitive needs will be underutilized.

No abstract

Purpose To determine if pain screening and functional assessment results are associated with new diagnoses and treatment for pain in primary care. Patients and Methods Observational study at 13 primary care sites of a statewide federally qualified health center that implemented routine screening and functional assessment for all adults in primary care. The study group included 10,091 adults aged 18+ who had an in-person visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, where they screened positive for chronic pain and completed a 3-question functional assessment with the PEG (Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity). Multivariate logistic regressions quantified associations between pain frequency, diagnosis and treatment, sociodemographics, comorbidities, and self-reported severe pain impairment with pain diagnoses and treatment documented after screening. Results Patients were mostly women (60.3%), Latinx (41.1%), English-speaking (80.1%), and Medicaid-insured (62.0%); they averaged 49.1 years old (SD = 13.7 years). Patients with severe pain impairment or who were Latinx were more likely to get a newly documented pain diagnosis (absolute risk difference [ARD]: 13.2% and 8.6%, ps < 0.0001), while patients with mental health/substance use or medical comorbidities were less likely (ARDs: −20.0% to −6.2%, ps < 0.001). Factors most consistently associated with treatment were prior treatment of the same modality (4 of 7 treatments, ARDs = 27.3% to 44.1%, ps <0.0001), new pain diagnosis (5 of 7, ARDs = 3.2% to 27.4%, ps <0.001), and severe impairment (4 of 7, ARDs = 2.6% to 6.5%, ps < 0.0001). A new diagnosis had the strongest association with non-opioid pain analgesics and physical medicine (ARD = 27.0% and 27.4%, p < 0.0001). Latinx patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesics and mental health/substance use medications and counseling (ARDs = −3.3% to 7.5%, ps <0.0001). Conclusion Screening and assessment with patient-reported tools may influence pain care. Care for Latinx patients differed from non-Latinx white patients.