Videographic Assessment of the Quality of EMS to ED Handoff Communication During Pediatric Resuscitations

Background: The National Association of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Physicians emphasizes the importance of high quality communication between EMS providers and emergency department (ED) staff for providing safe, effective care. The Joint Commission has identified ineffective handoff communication as a contributing factor in 80% of serious medical errors. The quality of handoff communication from EMS to ED teams for critically ill pediatric patients needs further exploration.

Objective: This study assessed the quality of handoff communication between EMS and ED staff during pediatric medical resuscitations.

Methods/Design: We conducted a retrospective review of video recordings of pediatric patients who required critical care (“resuscitation”) in the ED between January 2014 and February 2016 at a Level 1 pediatric trauma center. Handoff quality between EMS and emergency department teams was assessed for completeness, timeliness, and efficiency. Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Results: Sixty-eight resuscitations were reviewed; 28% presented in cardiac arrest, requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Completeness of information communicated was variable and included chief complaint (88%), prehospital interventions (81%), physical exam findings (63%), medical history (59%), age (56%), and weight (20%). Completeness of specific vital sign reporting included: respiratory rate (53%), heart rate (43%), oxygen saturation (39%), and blood pressure (31%). Timeliness of communication included median patient handoff and report times of 50?seconds [IQR 30,74] and 108?seconds [IQR 62,252], respectively. Inefficient communication occurred in 87% of handoffs, including interruptions by ED staff (51%), questions from the ED physician team leader asking for information already communicated (40%), and questions by ED physician team leader requesting information not yet communicated (65%). When comparing non-CPR to CPR cases, only timeliness of patient handoff was significantly different for those patients receiving prehospital CPR.

Conclusion: Handoff communication between EMS and ED teams during pediatric resuscitation was frequently incomplete and inefficient. Future educational and quality improvement interventions could aim to improve the quality of handoff communication for this patient population.