Cited by 48Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The limits of checklists: handoff and narrative thinking

Hilligoss, Brian, Moffatt-Bruce, Susan D·2014·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

Concerns about the role of communication failures in adverse events coupled with the success of checklists in addressing safety hazards have engendered a movement to apply structured tools to a wide variety of clinical communication practices. While standardised, structured approaches are appropriate for certain activities, their usefulness diminishes considerably for practices that entail constructing rich understandings of complex situations and the handling of ambiguities and unpredictable variation. Drawing on a prominent social science theory of cognition, this article distinguishes between two radically different modes of human thought, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. The paradigmatic mode organises context-free knowledge into categorical hierarchies that emphasise member-to-category relations in order to apply universal truth conditions. The narrative mode, on the other hand, organises context-sensitive knowledge into temporal plots that emphasise part-to-whole relations in order to develop meaningful, holistic understandings of particular events or identities. Both modes are crucial to human cognition but are appropriate responses for different kinds of tasks and situations. Many communication-intensive practices in which patient cases are communicated, such as handoffs, rely heavily on the narrative mode, yet most interventions assume the paradigmatic mode. Improving the safety and effectiveness of these practices, therefore, necessitates greater attentio…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002705

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?

  • The dominant theme of the literature for improving handoffs is standardized communication and checklists.

    “Our work also highlights the need for handoff communication to adapt to the patient's condition, contrasting with the dominant theme of the literature for improving handoffs: standardized communication and checklists.70”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 44 · Cited by 48

Authors
Hilligoss, B., & Moffatt-Bruce, S. D.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Corresponding author
Hilligoss, Brian
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-04-02
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
528-533
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2166662218
Cited by
48
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4
FWCI
8.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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 › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
checklists, clinical handoff, narrative thinking, paradigmatic thinking, clinical communication, patient safety, adverse events, communication breakdown, cognitive modes
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Professional-Patient Relations, Narration, Checklist, 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