Cited by 147Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization

Postoperative Handover: Problems, Pitfalls, and Prevention of Error

Nagpal, Kamal, Arora, Sonal, Abboudi, May, Vats, Amit, Wong, Helen W., Manchanda, Chhavi, Vincent, Charles, Moorthy, Krishna·2010·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

Objective To identify the information transfer and communication problems in postoperative handover and to develop and validate a novel protocol for standardizing this communication. Background Effective clinical handover ensures continuity of patient care. Patient handovers within surgical units are largely informal. A thorough understanding of the problem is vital to develop standardized protocols. Methods A qualitative semistructured interview study was conducted with 18 healthcare professionals to uncover the problems with postoperative handover and to identify solutions, including components of a postoperative handover protocol. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and submitted to emergent theme analysis. Multiple blind coders were used to ensure triangulation and reliability of the coding process. A Delphi method was used to elicit consensus from a group of 50 surgical professionals so as to validate the handover protocol. Results Many of the information transfer and communication failures at the postoperative phase are deemed to be due to an incomplete handover. All the interviewed healthcare professionals agreed that postoperative handover should be structured in the form of a standardized protocol so as to prevent omissions of any critical information. Based on this, 28 items were submitted to the Delphi process. Of these, 21 items had a mean importance score greater than 4.0 and were included in the final postoperative handover proforma under the followi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181dc3656

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 27 · Cited by 147

Authors
Nagpal, K., Arora, S., Abboudi, M., Vats, A., Wong, H. W., Manchanda, C., Vincent, C., & Moorthy, K.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2010-07
Volume
252
Issue
1
Pages
171-176
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019334771
Cited by
147
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 15
FWCI
13.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/D069718/1)
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, continuity of care, information transmission, communication breakdown, surgical wards, Delphi consensus
MeSH terms
Communication, Continuity of Patient Care, Delphi Technique, Interprofessional Relations, Interviews as Topic, Patient Transfer, Postoperative Period

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