Cited by 49Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Deficits in information transfer between anaesthesiologist and postanaesthesia care unit staff: an analysis of patient handover

Siddiqui, Naveed, Arzola, Cristian, Iqbal, Mirza, Sritharan, Kobika, Guerina, Laarni, Chung, Frances, Friedman, Zeev·2012·European Journal of Anaesthesiology

Abstract

Background The immediate postoperative period is important, as the patient recovers from the acute derangements resulting from the surgical insult and anaesthesia. Incomplete or incorrect communication between the anaesthesiologist and the postanaesthesia care unit nurse during the transfer process may lead to dangerous clinical mistakes. The literature examining handovers from operating room to the postanaesthesia care unit is scarce. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to examine the current transfer practice through observation of handovers between the anaesthesiologists and the postanaesthesia care unit staff in order to identify data omissions. The secondary objective was to learn which data items the clinicians and nurses thought were a necessary part of the transfer process and whether this information was communicated at the time of handover. Design A prospective observational study. Setting Academic hospital in Toronto, Canada. Participants and interventions After Research Ethics Board approval, a prospective observational study was conducted at a university-affiliated teaching centre. During a 2-month period, multiple observations of patient handover were performed. The data provided were marked on a checklist. At the end of the study, participating nurses and physicians were surveyed regarding the necessity of communicating different items on the checklist. Results A total of 526 transfers were observed. Of 29 data items examined, only two items (typ…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/eja.0b013e3283543e43

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siddiqui, N., Arzola, C., Iqbal, M., Sritharan, K., Guerina, L., Chung, F., & Friedman, Z.
Affiliations
Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Siddiqui, Naveed
Venue
European Journal of Anaesthesiology
Published
2012-09
Volume
29
Issue
9
Pages
438-445
ISSN
0265-0215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096294890
Cited by
49
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Anaesthesiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Toronto
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 › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
patient handover, information transmission, postoperative care, data omission, handover checklist, handover protocol, patient safety, nurse-physician communication
MeSH terms
Adult, Anesthesia Recovery Period, Anesthesiology, Communication, Continuity of Patient Care, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Transfer, Prospective Studies, Recovery Room

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