CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 102Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsElectronic Health Records Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to improve change of shift handovers and collaborative grounding and what role does the electronic patient record system play? Results of a systematic literature review

Flemming, Daniel, Hübner, Ursula·2013·International Journal of Medical Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.03.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction Establishing continuity of care in handovers at changes of shift is a challenging endeavor that is jeopardized by time pressure and errors typically occurring during synchronous communication. Only if the outgoing and incoming persons manage to collaboratively build a common ground for the next steps of care is it possible to ensure a proper continuation. Electronic systems, in particular electronic patient record systems, are powerful providers of information but their actual use might threaten achieving a common understanding of the patient if they force clinicians to work asynchronously. In order to gain a deeper understanding of communication failures and how to overcome them, we performed a systematic review of the literature, aiming to answer the following four research questions: (1a) What are typical errors and (1b) their consequences in handovers? (2) How can they be overcome by conventional strategies and instruments? (3) electronic systems? (4) Are there any instruments to support collaborative grounding? Methods We searched the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, and COCHRANE for articles on handovers in general and in combination with the terms electronic record systems and grounding that covered the time period of January 2000 to May 2012. Results The search led to 519 articles of which 60 were then finally included into the review. We found a sharp increase in the number of relevant studies starting with 2008. As could be documented by 20 studies that addre…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.03.004

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 91 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lauterbach, 2009, “What's written there is wrong” – on the quality of IT-based nursing documentation, PrInterNet – Zeitschrift für Pflegewissenschaft (German), 11, 95

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Flemming, D., & Hübner, U.
Affiliations
Hochschule Osnabrück (DE)
Corresponding author
Hübner, Ursula
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-07
Volume
82
Issue
7
Pages
580-592
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.03.004
OpenAlex
W2108004245
Cited by
102
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Library Osnabrück University (Hochschule Osnabrück) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Regional Development Fund
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
continuity of care, SBAR, communication errors, anticipatory guidance, asynchronous communication, patient information transfer
MeSH terms
Communication, Continuity of Patient Care, Cooperative Behavior, Health Personnel, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Electronic Health Records, Patient Handoff

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review