Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 498

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: a systematic review

Open access
Müller, Martin, Jürgens, Jonas, Redaèlli, Marcus, Klingberg, Karsten, Hautz, Wolf E, Stock, Stephanie·2018·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: Communication breakdown is one of the main causes of adverse events in clinical routine, particularly in handover situations. The communication tool SBAR (situation, background, assessment and recommendation) was developed to increase handover quality and is widely assumed to increase patient safety. The objective of this review is to summarise the impact of the implementation of SBAR on patient safety. Design: A systematic review of articles published on SBAR was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO in January 2017. All original research articles on SBAR fulfilling the following eligibility criteria were included: (1) SBAR was implemented into clinical routine, (2) the investigation of SBAR was the primary objective and (3) at least one patient outcome was reported. Setting: A wide range of settings within primary and secondary care and nursing homes. Participants: A variety of heath professionals including nurses and physicians. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Aspects of patient safety (patient outcomes) defined as the occurrence or incidence of adverse events. Results: Eight studies with a before–after design and three controlled clinical trials performed in different clinical settings met the inclusion criteria. The objectives of the studies were to improve team communication, patient hand-offs and communication in telephone calls from nurses to physicians. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study characteristics, especially patient outcomes. In total, 26 different patient outcomes were measured, of which eight were reported to be significantly improved. Eleven were described as improved but no further statistical tests were reported, and six outcomes did not change significantly. Only one study reported a descriptive reduction in patient outcomes. Conclusions: This review found moderate evidence for improved patient safety through SBAR implementation, especially when used to structure communication over the phone. However, there is a lack of high-quality research on this widely used communication tool. Trial registration: none

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022202

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 498

Metadata

Authors
Müller, M., Jürgens, J., Redaèlli, M., Klingberg, K., Hautz, W. E., & Stock, S.
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-08
Volume
8
Issue
8
Pages
e022202
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888458560
Cited by
498
References
37
FWCI
9.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022202
The paper
Müller, M., Jürgens, J., Redaèlli, M., Klingberg, K., Hautz, W. E., & Stock, S. (2018). Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: a systematic review. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022202

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.