Cited by 531Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsInnovations in Medical Education

Lost in Translation: Challenges and Opportunities in Physician-to-Physician Communication During Patient Handoffs

Solet, Darrell J., Norvell, J Michael, Rutan, Gale H., Frankel, Richard M.·2005·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Handoffs involve the transfer of rights, duties, and obligations from one person or team to another. In many high-precision, high-risk contexts such as a relay race or handling air traffic, handoff skills are practiced repetitively to optimize precision and anticipate errors. In medicine, wide variation exists in handoffs of hospitalized patients from one physician or team to another. Effective information transfer requires a solid foundation in communication skills. While these skills have received much attention in the medical literature, scholarship has focused on physician-to-patient, not physician-to-physician, communication. Little formal attention or education is available to reinforce this vital link in the continuity of patient care. The authors reviewed the literature on patient handoffs and evaluated the patient handoff process at Indiana University School of Medicine's internal medicine residency. House officers there rotate through four hospitals with three different computer systems. Two of the hospitals employ a computer-assisted patient handoff system; the other two utilize the standard pen-to-paper method. Considerable variation was observed in the quality and content of handoffs across these settings. Four major barriers to effective handoffs were identified: (1) the physical setting, (2) the social setting, (3) language barriers, and 4) communication barriers. The authors conclude that irrespective of local context, precise, unambiguous, face-to-face commun…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-200512000-00005

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • Incomplete or inaccurate handoffs are a source of subsequent medical errors and patient injury, particularly for patients undergoing major surgery.

    “Incomplete or inaccurate handoffs are a source of subsequent medical errors and patient injury,1–3 particularly for patients undergoing major surgery.4–7”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 23 · Cited by 531

Authors
Solet, D. J., Norvell, J. M., Rutan, G. H., & Frankel, R. M.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Solet, Darrell J.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2005-12
Volume
80
Issue
12
Pages
1094-1099
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100673063
Cited by
531
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 40
FWCI
21.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
patient handover, continuity of care, hospitalized patients, communication barriers, language barriers, internal medicine residency, medical residents
MeSH terms
Communication, Continuity of Patient Care, Humans, Internal Medicine, Internship and Residency, Interprofessional Relations, Patient Care Team, Quality of Health Care, Medical Records Systems, Computerized

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