Cited by 100Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization

Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient handover in surgery: A systematic review

Open access
Pucher, Philip H., Johnston, Maximilian J., Aggarwal, Rajesh, Arora, Sonal, Darzi, Ara·2015·Surgery

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.surg.2015.02.017

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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