Handoffs causing patient harm: a survey of medical and surgical house staff.

BACKGROUND: Communication lapses at the time of patient handoffs are believed to be common, and yet the frequency with which patients are harmed as a result of problematic handoffs is unknown. Resident physicians were surveyed about their handoffpractices and the frequency with which they perceive problems with handoffs lead to patient harm. METHODS: A survey was conducted in 2006 of all resident physicians in internal medicine and general surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) concerning the quality and effects of handoffs during their most recent inpatient rotations. Surveys were sent to 238 eligible residents; 161 responses were obtained (response rate, 67.6%). RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of residents reported that one or more patients had been harmed during their most recent clinical rotation because of problematic handoffs, and 12% reported that this harm had been major. Overall quality of handoffs was reported to be fair or poor by 31% of residents. A minority of residents (26%) reported that handoffs usually or always took place in a quiet setting, and 37% reported that one or more interruptions during the receipt of handoffs occurred either most of the time or always. DISCUSSION: Although handoffs have long been recognized as potentially hazardous, further scrutiny of handoffs has followed recent reports that handoffs are often marked by missing, incomplete, or inaccurate information and are associated with adverse events. In this study, reports of harm to patients from problematic handoffs were common among residents in internal medicine and general surgery. Many best-practice recommendations for handoffs are not observed, although the extent to which improvement of these practices could reduce patient harm is not known. MGH has recently launched a handoff-safety educational program, along with other interventions designed to improve the safety and effectiveness of handoffs, for its house staff and clinical leadership.

Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the nature, extent, and consequences of financial relationships between industry and institutional review board (IRB) members in academic institutions. We surveyed IRB members about such relationships. METHODS: We surveyed a random sample of 893 IRB members at 100 academic institutions (response rate, 67.2%). The questionnaire focused on the financial relationships that the members had with industry (e.g., employment, membership on boards, consulting, receipt of royalties, and paid speaking). RESULTS: We found that 36% of IRB members had had at least one relationship with industry in the past year. Of the respondents, 85.5% said they never thought that the relationships that another IRB member had with industry affected his or her IRB-related decisions in an inappropriate way, 11.9% said they thought this occurred rarely, 2.4% thought it occurred sometimes, and 0.2% thought it occurred often. Seventy-eight respondents (15.1%) reported that at least one protocol came before their IRB during the previous year that was sponsored either by a company with which they had a relationship or by a competitor of that company, both of which could be considered conflicts of interest. Of these 78 members (62 voting members and 16 nonvoting members), 57.7% reported that they always disclosed the relationship to an IRB official, 7.7% said they sometimes did, 11.5% said they rarely did, and 23.1% said they never did. Of the 62 voting members who reported conflicts, 64.5% reported that they never voted on the protocol, 4.8% said they rarely did, 11.3% said they sometimes did, and 19.4% said they always did. Most respondents reported that the views of IRB members who had experience working with industry were beneficial in reviewing industry-sponsored protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Relationships between IRB members and industry are common, and members sometimes participate in decisions about protocols sponsored by companies with which they have a financial relationship. Current regulations and policies should be examined to be sure that there is an appropriate way to handle conflicts of interest stemming from relationships with industry.