MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406689206 · doi:10.1101/2025.01.16.25320692

The impact of physician handoffs on the outcomes of admitted emergency department patients: a medical administrative database retrospective cohort study

2025· preprint· en· W4406689206 on OpenAlexaffabout
Akram Mokhtari, David Simonyan, Myriam Mallet, Sébastien P. Blais, Lynne Moore, Simon Berthelot

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyMedicineEmergency departmentCohortMedical emergencyEmergency medicineMedical recordDatabaseComputer scienceInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction A physician handoff is the process through which physicians transfer the primary responsibility of a care unit. The emergency department (ED) is a fast-paced and crowded environment where the risk of information loss between shifts is significant. Yet, the impact of handoffs between emergency physicians on patient outcomes remains understudied. We performed a retrospective cohort study in the ED to determine if handed-off patients, when compared to non-handed-off patients, were at higher risk of negative outcomes. Methods We included every adult patient first assessed by an emergency physician and subsequently admitted to hospital in one of the five sites of the CHU de Québec-Université Laval during fiscal year 2016-17. Primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were incidence of ICU admission and surgery and hospital length of stay. We conducted propensity score based analysis accounting for patient and hospital clusters and adjusting for demographics, multiple disease severity indicators and ED processes indicators, including crowding. Results 21,136 ED visits and 17,150 unique individuals were included in the study. Median[Q1-Q3] age, Charlson score, door-to-emergency-physician time and ED length of stay were 71[55-83] years old, 3[1-4], 48 [24,90] minutes, 20.8[9.9,32.7] hours, respectively. In propensity score analysis (OR handoff/no handoff [CI95%] or GMR[Cl95%]), handoff status was not associated with mortality (1.08[0.93,1.26]), ICU admission (1.01[0.87,1.18]) or hospital length of stay (1.02[0.94-1.10]). Sensitivity and sub-group based analyses yielded no further information. Conclusion Emergency physicians’ handoffs were not associated with an increase in risk of severe in-hospital adverse events. Further studies are needed to explore the impact of ED handoffs on adverse events of low and moderate severity. What is already known on this subject Handoffs are widely believed to affect patient outcomes in the ED, although data remains scarce. What did this study ask What is the impact of handoffs between emergency physicians on patient outcomes What this study adds Handed off patients do not seem to do worse than non handed off patients concerning majors outcomes (mortality, ICU admission, LOS). Why does it matter to clinicians? In the ED, handoffs may not represent a risk to patient outcomes. QI efforts may be better invested in other care inefficiencies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207