Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Standardized Handoff Protocols on Patient, Provider, and Organizational Outcomes
Abstract
Objective The overall purpose was to understand the effects of handoff protocols using meta-analytic approaches. Background Standardized protocols have been required by the Joint Commission, but meta-analytic integration of handoff protocol research has not been conducted. Method The primary outcomes investigated were handoff information passed during transitions of care, patient outcomes, provider outcomes, and organizational outcomes. Sources included Medline, SAGE, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed, searched from the earliest date available through March 30th, 2015. Initially 4,556 articles were identified, with 4,520 removed. This process left a final set of 36 articles, all which included pre-/postintervention designs implemented in live clinical/hospital settings. We also conducted a moderation analysis based on the number of items contained in each protocol to understand if the length of a protocol led to systematic changes in effect sizes of the outcome variables. Results Meta-analyses were conducted on 34,527 pre- and 30,072 postintervention data points. Results indicate positive effects on all four outcomes: handoff information (g = .71, 95% confidence interval [CI] [.63, .79]), patient outcomes (g = .53, 95% CI [.41, .65]), provider outcomes (g = .51, 95% CI [.41, .60]), and organizational outcomes (g = .29, 95% CI [.23, .35]). We found protocols to be effective, but there is significant publication bias and heterogeneity in the literature. Due to publication bias, we f…
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?
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”
From Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 97
- Authors
- Keebler, J. R., Lazzara, E. H., Patzer, B. S., Palmer, E. M., Plummer, J. P., Smith, D. C., Lew, V., Fouquet, S., Chan, Y. R., & Riss, R.
- Affiliations
- Children's Mercy Hospital (US)
- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Daytona Beach Florida Campus (US)
- Wichita State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Keebler, Joseph R.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-10-21
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1187-1205
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2537412132
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 1.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Holmes Museum Of Anthropology (Wichita State University) (submittedVersion)
- Scholarly Commons (Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University) (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 › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Keywords
- patient handover, care transitions, patient outcomes, organizational outcomes, omission errors, publication bias, Joint Commission requirements, patient safety, hospital quality of care, patient types
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Protocols, Humans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
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