The limits of checklists: handoff and narrative thinking
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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”
From Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study (2023) · cites this paper as [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