Cited by 54Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsAnesthesia and Pain Management

Quality of post-operative patient handover in the post-anaesthesia care unit: a prospective analysis: Post-operative patient handover in the PACU

MILBY, A., BÖHMER, A., GERBERSHAGEN, M. U., JOPPICH, R., WAPPLER, F.·2014·Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

Abstract

Background Anaesthesiology plays a key role in promoting safe perioperative care. This includes the perioperative phase in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) where problems with incomplete information transfer may have a negative impact on patient safety and can lead to patient harm. The objective of this study was to analyse information transfer during post-operative handovers in the PACU. Methods With a self-developed checklist including 59 items the information transfer during post-operative handovers was documented and subsequently compared with patient information in anaesthesia records during a 2-month period. Results A total number of 790 handovers with duration of 73 ± 49 s was analysed. Few items were transferred in most of the cases such as type of surgery (97% of the cases), regional anaesthesia (94% of the cases) and cardiac instability (93% of the cases). However, some items were rarely transferred, such as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (7% of the cases), initiation of post-operative pain management (12% of the cases), antibiotic therapy (14% of the cases) and fluid management (15% of the cases). There was a slight correlation between amount of information transferred and duration of post-operative handovers (r = 0.5). Conclusion The study shows that post-operative handovers in the PACU are in most cases incomplete. It appears useful to optimise the post-operative handover process, for example by implementing a standardised handover che…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/aas.12249

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
MILBY, A., BÖHMER, A., GERBERSHAGEN, M. U., JOPPICH, R., & WAPPLER, F.
Affiliations
  • Witten/Herdecke University (DE)
  • Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine; Hospital Merheim; Cologne Germany
Corresponding author
MILBY, A.
Venue
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-12-20
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
192-197
ISSN
0001-5172 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1955782277
Cited by
54
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (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 › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
post-anesthesia care unit, information transmission, patient safety, handover checklist, perioperative care, regional anesthesia
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anesthesia, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Postoperative Pain, Patient Transfer, Postoperative Period, Prospective Studies, Recovery Room, Antibiotic Prophylaxis, Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting, Checklist, Airway Management, Pain Management, 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