Cited by 48Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units

Improving Patient Safety in Handover From Intensive Care Unit to General Ward: A Systematic Review

Wibrandt, Ida, Lippert, Anne·2020·Journal of Patient Safety

Abstract

Objectives: Despite of the increasing knowledge about patient safety improvements in the handover process in hospitals, we still lack knowledge about what magnitude of patient safety gains can be expected from improvements in handover between the intensive care unit (ICU) and the general ward. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate which handover tools are devised and evaluated with the aim of improving patient safety in the handover process from ICU to ward and whether the described handover tools fulfill their purpose. Methods: A systematic literature search of 6 databases was performed to answer the review question, developed by using the “Patient Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome” format. Two authors independently performed the selection process, as well as the data extraction and quality assessment. The recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement were followed. Results: Eight studies were finally included in the qualitative analysis. One study investigated a written information tool, 1 study investigated improved verbal information, 1 study investigated the effect of an additional safety check, and 5 studies investigated a Liaison Nurse as handover tool. Because of heterogeneity among the included studies, the study results could not be pooled. Conclusions: Not many well-conducted studies can shed light on this important topic. Giving patients and their families a supplementary written or verbal status report before transfer might improve patient safety. The introduction of a Liaison Nurse may be effective in improving communication between ICU and ward staff, which might reduce risks in patient safety. However, there is no evidence of improved mortality and/or readmission rates after introducing handover tools in the transfer from ICU to ward.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/pts.0000000000000266

Cites

42 of 42 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
Wibrandt, I., & Lippert, A.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Wibrandt, Ida
Venue
Journal of Patient Safety
Published
2017-04-28
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
199-210
ISSN
  • 1549-8417 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-8425
OpenAlex
W2610006358
Cited by
48
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Patient Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Keywords
patient handover, intensive care unit, general wards, patient safety, liaison nurse, verbal handover, safety inspection, interprofessional communication, ICU-to-ward transfer
MeSH terms
Humans, Intensive Care Units, 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