ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Although Internal Medicine year-end resident clinic handoffs affect numerous patients, little research has described patients’ perspectives of the experience.
OBJECTIVE
To describe patients’ perceptions of positive and negative experiences pertaining to the year-end clinic handoff; to rate patient satisfaction with aspects of the clinic handoff and identify whether or not patients could name their new physicians.
DESIGN
Qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews.
PARTICIPANTS
High-risk patients who underwent a year-end clinic handoff in July 2011.
MEASUREMENTS
Three months post-handoff, telephone interviews were conducted with patients to elicit their perceptions of positive and negative experiences. An initial coding classification was developed and applied to transcripts. Patients were also asked to name their primary care physician (PCP) and rate their satisfaction with the handoff.
RESULTS
In all, 103 telephone interviews were completed. Patient experiences regarding clinic handoffs were categorized into four themes: (1) doctor-patient relationships (i.e. difficulty building rapport); (2) clinic logistics (i.e. difficulty rescheduling appointments); (3) process of the care transition (i.e. patient unaware transition occurred); and (4) patient safety-related issues (i.e. missed tests). Only 59 % of patients could correctly name their new PCP. Patients who reported that they were informed of the clinic transition by letter or by telephone call from their new PCP were more likely to correctly name them (65 % vs. 32 % p = 0.007), report that their new doctor assumed care for them immediately (81 % [68/84] vs. 53 % [10/19], p = 0.009) and report satisfaction with communication between their old and new doctors (80 % [67/84] vs. 58 % [11/19], p = 0.04). Patients reported positive experiences such as learning more about their new physician through personal sharing, which helped them build rapport. Patients who reported being aware of the medical education mission of the clinic tended to be more understanding of the handoff process.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients face unique challenges during year-end clinic handoffs and provide insights into areas of improvement for a patient-centered handoff.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
BACKGROUND
Year-end resident clinic handoffs occur when patients transfer resident primary care providers (PCP) at the time of resident graduation. Annually, year-end resident clinic handoffs impact approximately one million patients.1 Recently, it has been demonstrated that resident clinic handoffs put patients at risk and lead to discontinuity of care.2–4 Despite Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for resident competency in handoffs, clinic handoffs remain an unaddressed patient safety issue in resident education, and there is little evidence for effective solutions.1,5
The risks of clinic handoffs for patients are numerous. After a clinic handoff, patients often do not have a follow-up appointment, are lost to follow-up, and test results are missed.3,4 These handoffs also create many missed opportunities to provide preventative health and routine management for chronic conditions.3 Even when patients receive appointments, they often miss visits and are ultimately lost to follow-up.4 They may also experience more acute visits in the emergency room or hospital as a consequence of delayed care.4 Although poor outcomes attributable to clinic handoffs have been demonstrated, there are few interventions demonstrating improvement in clinic handoff outcomes. One multifaceted handoff intervention in a psychiatry residency clinic demonstrated improved timeliness of follow-up and patient outcomes.6,7 Two interventions in internal medicine clinics increased the number of handoffs completed and improved the number of clinical tasks that were followed up after the transition.8,9
To date, there has been little examination of the patient perspective of year-end clinic handoffs. One earlier study identified that less than half of patients were fully satisfied with their transfer in an Internal Medicine (IM) resident clinic.10 The main predictor for increased patient satisfaction in that study was personal notification of the transition by the departing resident. Other predictors included whether or not the patient felt the departing resident had done everything possible to facilitate the transfer, whether there was opportunity to discuss the transfer with the departing resident, and the patient’s overall perception of the medical center. A subsequent intervention consisting of educating departing residents on how to approach the transfer with patients and sending handoff notification letters to patients increased patient satisfaction.11 These studies were based upon patient questionnaires and did not elicit patient experiences and perceptions of the handoff process.
Several agencies including the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) advocate for redesigning processes of care to focus on delivering patient-centered care to improve quality.12,13 Thus, understanding the patients’ perspectives is necessary to improve clinic handoffs and design patient-centered care transitions. Eliciting the patient perspective is especially critical to improving clinic handoffs, since certain patient factors may be associated with poor outcomes, such as understanding why patients miss visits during the transition. Additionally, the risks of these handoffs may be underestimated, since prior studies show that patients are often able to report adverse events that would be missed by chart review.14,15 Furthermore, patients may be aware of the quality of inter-physician communication during care transitions and may give additional insights into methods to improve communication during clinic handoffs.16
Therefore, to improve clinic handoffs, more insight into patient experiences and patient needs during this transition are crucial. Our aim was to examine patient perspectives and satisfaction with resident clinic handoffs using semi-structured interviews. In particular, we strove to identify patients’ perceptions of positive and negative experiences during clinic handoffs. Ultimately, these findings can be used to design patient-centered handoff processes.
METHODS
Setting and Study Design
This study occurred at a single, academic IM resident continuity clinic. Approximately 30 IM residents per class have clinic at this site, spending half-days in clinic for the duration of their residency supervised by faculty preceptors consistent with ACGME regulations.5 Patients were recruited for this study from October 2011 to January 2012 after being identified on a sign-out by graduating residents during a year-end clinic handoff in June 2011. This study was approved by the University of Chicago Institutional Review Board.
Clinic Handoff Process
In June 2011, as part of a multifaceted clinic handoff protocol, departing residents were asked to list patients they believed were “high-risk” during the handoff on a sign-out worksheet. Residents had previously received education on the risks of clinic handoffs and guidance on how to select high-risk patients. Suggestions for high-risk patients included complex patients with multiple comorbidities, nonadherent patients, patient who frequently miss visits, patients with frequent hospitalizations, patients with psychiatric diseases or challenging social situations, and patients undergoing active work-up.4,17 During a scheduled conference, departing residents discussed patients on their sign-out with the post-graduate year (PGY) 2 resident assuming care for their patients after the handoff. Patients are handed off to PGY2 residents instead of interns, since interns would be unable to receive an in-person sign-out. Patients received letters notifying them of the transition in May, and many patients were also notified in person by the departing physician. When possible, patients received appointments with their new physician at the time of their last visit with their departing physician or were placed on a wait list. High-risk patients were scheduled to be seen with priority as soon as possible after the handoff.
Data Collection
Sign-outs were collected to record the names and medical record numbers of high-risk patients identified by residents. Departing residents and residents assuming care gave email or written consent for their patients to be contacted to participate in interviews.
A patient interview script was developed to elicit positive and negative experiences with the clinic handoff process (Appendix 1, available online). The script was designed for easy readability and reviewed with a patient champion to ensure adequate understanding. The interview questions were semi-structured. (For example, “Did anything bad or inconvenient happen following your transition to the new doctor?”). Probing questions were added to the script and improvised by the interviewer (KB) to prompt patient comments. Patient survey questions were also added to assess satisfaction with various aspects of the clinic handoff and quantify patients’ perceptions of the quality of the clinic handoff.18,19 Patients were asked to rate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree for specific statements about the clinic handoff. Patients were also asked to name their old and new PCP and whether they were notified about the transition.
High-risk patients were contacted by a trained research assistant (KB) by telephone and invited to participate in interviews during the post-handoff period (October 2011–January 2012). Consent was obtained to record the conversation prior to beginning the interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed using digital telephone audio recording.
Data Analysis
Two physician investigators (AP& WL) and one research assistant (RA) (KB) each independently coded 21 (20 %) of the interview transcripts to establish a coding scheme, and subsequently met to discuss discrepancies and to refine the coding scheme. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. After the coding scheme was finalized, an additional ten (10 %) transcripts were coded independently each by two physician investigators (AP& WL) and one trained RA (KB) to further test and refine the categories. Another author (AP) reviewed all coded quotations to ensure correct assignment. Qualitative analysis was completed using Atlas.ti 5.2 (Berlin) software program.20
Patient responses to Likert-type items were examined and data were dichotomized for analysis (“agree” was defined as the combined sum of agree- and strongly agree). Whether patients could correctly name their new PCP, whether or not they had recalled receiving notification of the handoff, and their satisfaction ratings were analyzed using STATA.21 Chi square, Fisher’s Exact, and t-tests were utilized, as appropriate, to test associations between these variables.
RESULTS
There were 26 departing residents who listed 323 high-risk patients on their sign-outs. After contacting all (323) patients, 95 % (307/323) were deemed eligible. Patients who could not consent, were deceased, changed insurance providers or were no longer patients of the clinic were excluded (Fig. 1). After attempting to contact all eligible patients twice, 103 patient interviews were completed. The mean age of participants was 67 (range 31–91), 71 % were women and 88 % were African American. On average, non-respondents were younger; their mean age was 63 (range 24–90, p = 0.01), but had similar proportions of women (66 %, p = 0.41) and African American patients (85 %, p = 0.46). Inter-rater reliability for coding was assessed using a three-way kappa statistic, which was 0.6.
Patients’ Negative and Positive Experiences
Patients identified 28 negative experiences with clinic handoffs that were categorized into four overarching themes: (1) doctor-patient relationships (i.e. difficulty building rapport); (2) clinic logistics (i.e. difficulty rescheduling appointments); (3) process of the care transition (i.e. patient unaware that transition had occurred); and (4) patient safety-related issues (i.e. missed tests) (Table 1). The most common experiences by patients were resignation with the handoffs (52), difficulty building relationship or rapport with the new physician (50), inability to recall their new physician’s name (36), and not being made aware of the handoff prior to its occurrence (35) (Appendix 2, available online).
Patients most frequently reported interruption of the doctor–patient relationship as their experience of clinic handoffs (172). Patients reported difficulty with frequent physician turnover, doctor–patient communication and often felt anxious and uncomfortable with the new physician PCP (Table 1). Patients most frequently expressed tolerance and resignation with the system of clinic handoffs and experienced frustration with frequent turnover (Table 1).
Clinic logistics and the process of the care transition were the next most frequently occurring themes. Overall patient safety-related issues occurred as a theme in 88 interviews. Specifically, patients reported seeking acute care visits (ER or urgent care) due to delayed care, missed test results or running out of medications during the transition period (Table 1).
Patients identified several positive experiences during the clinic handoff process. There were 15 distinct positive categories identified by patients, which fit into the same four themes as the negative experiences (Table 2). The most common identified positive experiences were being made aware of the handoff before its occurrence (53), being able to build a relationship or rapport with the new doctor (45), being called by their new doctor before the first visit (44), and good doctor–patient communication (42). Patients valued being prepared by their doctors for the transition (37) and some found it helpful to prepare themselves for their first visit with their new doctor. They also reported that ‘personal sharing’ from the new PCP helped build rapport. Personal sharing occurred when patients learned personal information about their doctor, such as being made aware of an important personal event in their doctor’s life, i.e. marriage or a birth of a child (Appendix 2, available online). Also, patients who were aware of their role in the educational mission as educators of residents were more understanding of the process (Table 2).
Patient Satisfaction and Patient Reported Outcomes
During interviews, although 73 % (75/103) of patients could correctly name their old PCP, only 59 % (61/103) of patients could correctly name their new PCP (Table 3), even though the majority of patients (83 %, 86/103) reported they had seen their new PCP at the time of the interview. A few patients (15 %, 15/103) reported difficulty getting a visit after the handoff and 19 % (20/103) reported having missed a visit with their new PCP. About half of patients had tried to reach their PCP after the handoff (40 % 41/103), and of these, 29 % (12/41) reported having difficulty communicating with them. While satisfaction with most aspects of the clinic handoff was high (Table 4), only 63 % (62/99) of patients were satisfied with the process of changing doctors overall. Patients who had seen their new PCP at the time of their interview were more satisfied with the clinic handoff than those who had not yet seen their PCP (57/86 [66 %] vs. 6/17 [35 %], p = 0.027).
Overall, 72 % (74/103) of patients recalled receiving a letter from the clinic notifying them of the handoff, and 35 % (36/103) reported having a telephone conversation with the new PCP prior to their first clinic visit. In total, 82 % (84/103) of patients were notified of the transition by either a letter or telephone call. Patients who recalled receiving a letter or being contacted by telephone were more likely to report they were aware that their doctor was changing when compared to those who did not (95 % [80/84] vs. 79 % [15/19], p = 0.02). Notification of the clinic transition by letter or telephone call with the new PCP was associated with a higher rate of patients correctly naming their new PCP (65 % [55/84] vs. 32 % [6/19], p = 0.007). This notification was also associated with more patients reporting their new doctor assumed care for them immediately (81 % [68/84] vs. 53 %[10/19], p = 0.009) and reporting satisfaction with communication between their old and new doctors (80 % [67/84] vs. 58 % [11/19], p = 0.04). There was no association between receiving a letter or a telephone visit (61 % [51/84] vs. 58 % [11/19], p = 0.82) and correctly naming their new PCP (64 % [39/61] vs. 55 % [23/42], p = 0.35) and overall satisfaction with the clinic handoff.
DISCUSSION
In this study, high-risk patients identified positive and negative experiences of clinic handoffs after switching to a new resident PCP. Lack of patient notification and preparation for the handoff are common problems, as is inability to recall the new PCP’s name. Patients expected good communication to occur between the old and new doctor, as well as for the new physician to be aware of their medical history at the time of the first visit. They also expressed a lack of trust with the new PCP and being unhappy with major changes at the first visit. Patients were also aware of patient safety-related issues during their handoff and scheduling constraints. Additionally, many patients could not name their new resident physician when asked. Furthermore, many patients felt resignation with frequent turnover, and yet were tolerant of the process. Patients also expressed problems with systems issues outside of resident education, such as trouble communicating with their physician, difficulty with transportation to clinic and difficulty scheduling appointments.
Despite the numerous negative experiences of clinic handoffs identified, for the majority of patients, satisfaction was high. Interestingly, patient satisfaction with individual components of the handoff process was higher than overall satisfaction with the clinic handoff. One possible reason is that even with a good handoff process, patients do not like switching PCPs. It is also possible that we did not ask about components of the handoff process with which patients are most dissatisfied that would have correlated with their overall satisfaction. Our patient satisfaction with the clinic handoff was higher than satisfaction ratings reported in previous studies. Other investigators reported findings similar to ours that satisfaction correlated with notification of the handoff by letter or telephone.10,11
The finding of patients’ resignation is also interesting. Although many patients identified problems and aspects of the clinic handoff that they disliked, they were tolerant of it. It is possible that this resignation is because patients like having a resident PCP because they receive more attention, have longer visits, and like being seen by young doctors. It is also possible that patients did not think they had a choice because they wanted to receive care at our tertiary clinic rather than at other clinics.
This study has implications for a patient-centered clinic handoff process. It is important to ensure that patients receive clear notification of the handoff well in advance either in person, by telephone or by letter. It is equally important to help patients identify and pronounce the name of their new physician. Patients should be made aware of how physicians prepare for the handoff including communication, since patients value knowing that physicians review their chart prior to the visit and communicate about their care. Training residents in patient-centered communication during the handoff and working on improving their doctor–patient communication overall will also be helpful. Acknowledging patients for their role in educating resident physicians may be helpful. In addition, telephone visits with their new physician prior to the first visit may help improve the transition. Lastly, ensuring patients are notified about test results during handoffs and have methods of getting medications refilled seamlessly throughout the transition time period will improve patient safety. Scheduling high-risk patients to be seen in clinic early after the handoff is crucial.
There were several limitations of our study. First, it was a single institution study possibly limiting the generalizability our findings. Second, non-response bias may have influenced results, as it was difficult to reach patients by telephone and we were thus unable to interview all patients in our sample. In addition, we solicited the views of “high-risk” patients who likely had more chronic conditions, nonadherence, missed visits and hospitalizations. This also highlights the difficulty of contacting this high-risk population by telephone. Lastly, we had already implemented a clinic handoff protocol and an educational intervention for resident physicians prior to this study, so we are likely underestimating the negative experiences of patients and overestimating patient satisfaction compared to clinics without handoff protocols in place.
In summary, patients face negative experiences during clinic handoffs. Patients frequently are not aware of the transition, cannot name their new physician, and are at risk of experiencing patient safety-related issues during the handoff time frame. Patients are anxious about seeing a new physician and have difficulty establishing rapport after experiencing frequent physician turnover. Good physician handoff communication, doctor–patient communication and resident preparation prior to the first visit may mitigate these effects. Redesign of clinic handoff processes to be more patient-centered is needed and should incorporate these findings.
REFERENCES
Young JQ, Wachter RM. Academic year-End transfers of outpatients from outgoing to incoming residents: an unaddressed patient safety issue. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1327–1329.
Young JQ, Eisendrath SJ. Enhancing patient safety and resident education during the academic year-end transfer of outpatients: lessons from the suicide of a psychiatric patient. Acad Psych. 2011;35(1):54–57.
Caines LC, Brockmeyer DM, Tess AV, Kim H, Kriegel G, Bates CK. The revolving door of resident continuity practice. Identifying gaps in transitions of care. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;6(9):995–998.
Pincavage AT, Ratner S, Prochaska ML, Prochaska M, Oyler J, Davis AM, Arora V. Outcomes for resident-identified high-risk patients and resident perspectives of year-end continuity clinic handoffs. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(11):1438–1444.
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Internal Medicine. Available at:http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/ProgramandInstitutionalGuidelines/MedicalAccreditation/InternalMedicine.aspx Accessed February 14, 2013.
Young JQ, Niehaus B, Lieu SC, O’Sullivan PS. Improving resident education and patient safety: a method to balance caseloads at academic year-end transfer. Acad Med. 2010;85(9):1418–1424.
Young JQ, Pringle Z, Wachter RM. Improving follow-up of high risk psychiatry outpatients at resident year-end transfer. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37(7):300–308.
Donnelly MJ, Clauser JM, Weissman NJ. An intervention to improve ambulatory care handoffs at the end of residency. J Graduate Med Educ. 2012;4(3):381–384.
Garment AR, Lee WW, Harris C, Phillips-Caesar E. Development of a structured year-end sign-out program in an outpatient continuity practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;28(1):114–120.
Roy MJ, Kroenke K, Herbers JE Jr. When the physician leaves the patient: predictors of satisfaction with the transfer of primary care in a primary care clinic. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(4):206–210.
Roy MJ, Herbers JE, Seidman A, Kroenke K. Improving patient satisfaction with the transfer of care, a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(5):364–369.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Institute of Mental Health. Program announcement. Patient-centered care: customizing care to meet patients’ needs. 2001, July 31. Web site: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-01-124.html. Accessed February 14, 2013.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). Committee on Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academy Press: Institute of Medicine. 2001.
Weissman JS, Schneider EC, Weingart SN, Epstein AM, David-Kasdan J, Feibelmann S, Annas CL, Ridley N, Kirle L, Gatsonis C. Comparing patient-reported hospital adverse events with the medical record review: do patients know something that hospitals do not? Ann Intern Med. 2005;149(2):100–108.
Weingart SN, Pagovich O, Sands DZ, Aronson MD, Davis RB, Bates DW, Phillips RS. What can hospitalized patients tell us about adverse events? Learning from the patient-reported incidents. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(9):830–836.
Arora VM, Prochaska ML, Farnan JM, D'Arcy VMJ, Schwanz KJ, Vinci LM, Davis AM, Meltzer DO, Johnson JK. Problems after discharge and understanding of communication with their primary care physicians among hospitalized seniors: a mixed methods study. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(7):385–391.
Pincavage AT, Ratner S, Lee WW, Oyler J, Arora VM. Innovating education to improve year-end resident continuity clinic handoffs. Acad Intern Med Insight. 2012;10(3):8–9, 11.
Coleman EA, Mahoney E, Parry C. Assessing the quality of preparation for post-hospital care from the Patient’s perspective: the care transitions measure. Med Care. 2005;43(3):246–255.
Coleman EA, Smith JD, Eilertsen TB, Frank JC, Thiare JN, Ward A, and Kramer AM. Development and testing of a measure designed to assess the quality of care transitions. International Journal of Care Integration. 2002:2 April–June.
ATLAS.ti Qualitative Data Analysis Program. Scientific Software Development GambH. 2002–2013.
STATA 21 11.0 (College Station, TX).
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Shana Ratner MD, Julie Oyler MD, Lisa Vinci MD MS, John McConville MD, Jim Woodruff MD, Lynda Hale, the University of Chicago Section of General Internal Medicine, the University of Chicago Internal Medicine Residency Program and the University of Chicago Primary Care Group.
Funders
Picker Institute-Gold Foundation Challenge Grant for Residency Training and the University of Chicago Graduate Medical Education Committee Resident Education Grant.
Prior Presentations
This research was presented as an oral presentation at the Society of General Internal Medicine 2012 Annual Meeting in Orlando, FL, May 2012; and at the Midwest Society of General Internal Medicine 2012 Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, September 2012.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 122 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pincavage, A.T., Lee, W.W., Beiting, K.J. et al. What Do Patients Think About Year-End Resident Continuity Clinic Handoffs?: A Qualitative Study. J GEN INTERN MED 28, 999–1007 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2395-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2395-3