Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient handover in surgery: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Background Handover of patient care is a critical process in the transfer of information between clinical teams and clinicians during transitions in patient care. The handover process may take many forms and is often unstructured and unstandardized, potentially resulting in error and the potential for patient harm. The Joint Commission has implicated such errors in up to 80% of sentinel events and has published guidelines (using an acronym termed SHARE) for the development of intervention tools for handover. This study aims to review interventions to improve handovers in surgery and to assess compliance of described methodologies with the guidelines of the Joint Commission for design and implementation of handover improvement tools. Methods A systematic review was conducted in line with MOOSE guidelines. Electronic databases Medline, EMBASE, and PsyInfo were searched and interventions to improve surgical handover identified. Intervention types, development methods, and outcomes were compared between studies and assessed against SHARE criteria. Results Nineteen studies were included. These studies included paper and computerized checklists, proformas, and/or standardized operating protocols for handover. All reported some degree of improvement in handover. Description of development methods, staff training, and follow-up outcome data was poor. Only a single study was able to demonstrate compliance with all 5 domains guidelines of the of Joint Commission. Conclusion Improvement…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Handoff-related information gaps are common for postoperative patients.
“Nevertheless, handoff-related information gaps are common for postoperative patients.10,25–28”
From Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study (2023) · cites this paper as [28]
Cites
Introduction of surgical safety checklists in Ontario, Canada
Urbach, D. R., Govindarajan, A., Saskin, R., Wilton, A. S., & Baxter, N. N. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1308261 · Cited by 627 · see citing works
Adamina, M., Kehlet, H., Tomlinson, G. A., Senagore, A. J., & Delaney, C. P. (2011) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.11.003 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
Starmer, A. J., Sectish, T. C., Simon, D. W., Keohane, C., McSweeney, M. E., Chung, E. Y., Yoon, C. S., Lipsitz, S. R., Wassner, A. J., Harper, M. B., et al. (2013) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281961 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Leape, L. L. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejme1315851 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study
King, C. R., Shambe, A., & Abraham, J. (2023) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad015 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“23,24 28 The EHR has promise for mitigating and reducing these information gaps.”
Background
- Authors
- Pucher, P. H., Johnston, M. J., Aggarwal, R., Arora, S., & Darzi, A.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- McGill University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Pucher, Philip H.
- Venue
- Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-07
- Volume
- 158
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 85-95
- ISSN
- 0039-6060 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1511971198
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 2.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- Locations
- Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0510-10186)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
- Keywords
- patient handover, surgical handover, handover checklist, proforma, patient safety, information transmission, clinical implementation, employee training
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Protocols, Communication, Continuity of Patient Care, Humans, Patient Transfer, Medical Errors, Checklist, Patient Safety, 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