Interfacility Referral Communication for PICU Transfer.

Thirnbeck CK, Espinoza ET, Beaman EA, Rozen AL, Dukes KC, Singh H, Herwaldt LA, Landrigan CP, Reisinger HS, Cifra CL. Interfacility Referral Communication for PICU Transfer. Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies. 2024 Mar 14.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 17-127 – Measuring and Improving the Safety of Test Result Follow-Up

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

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.