Cited by 251Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization

Can We Make Postoperative Patient Handovers Safer? A Systematic Review of the Literature

Open access
Segall, Noa, Bonifacio, Alberto S., Schroeder, Rebecca A., Barbeito, Atilio, Rogers, Dawn, Thornlow, Deirdre K., Emery, James, Kellum, Sally +2 more·2012·Anesthesia & Analgesia

Abstract

Postoperative patient handovers are fraught with technical and communication errors and may negatively impact patient safety. We systematically reviewed the literature on handover of care from the operating room to postanesthesia or intensive care units and summarized process and communication recommendations based on these findings. From >500 papers, we identified 31 dealing with postoperative handovers. Twenty-four included recommendations for structuring the handover process or information transfer. Several recommendations were broadly supported, including (1) standardize processes (e.g., through the use of checklists and protocols); (2) complete urgent clinical tasks before the information transfer; (3) allow only patient-specific discussions during verbal handovers; (4) require that all relevant team members be present; and (5) provide training in team skills and communication. Only 4 of the studies developed an intervention and formally assessed its impact on different process measures. All 4 interventions improved metrics of effectiveness, efficiency, and perceived teamwork. Most of the papers were cross-sectional studies that identified barriers to safe, effective postoperative handovers including the incomplete transfer of information and other communication issues, inconsistent or incomplete teams, absent or inefficient execution of clinical tasks, and poor standardization. An association between poor-quality handovers and adverse events was also demonstrated. More innovative research is needed to define optimal patient handovers and to determine the effect of handover quality on patient outcomes.

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 · 10.1213/ane.0b013e318253af4b

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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 [4]

    The Results and Conclusions (page not available) link poor postoperative handovers with adverse outcomes, but explicitly say that causality cannot be established. The review covers surgical patients generally; it does not establish that the risk is particular to patients undergoing major surgery. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [14]14. Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. Clinical Handover and Patient Safety: Literature Review Report, 2005
  2. [29]29. Joy BF, Elliott E, Hardy C, Sullivan C, Backer CL, Kane JM. Standardized multidisciplinary protocol improves handover of cardiac surgery patients to the intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2011;12:304-8 [PubMed: 21057370]
  3. [57]57. Chen JG, Mistry KP, Wright MC, Turner DA. Postoperative handoff communication: a simulationbased training method. Simul Healthc 2010;5:242-7 [PubMed: 21330804]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Segall, N., Bonifacio, A. S., Schroeder, R. A., Barbeito, A., Rogers, D., Thornlow, D. K., Emery, J., Kellum, S., Wright, M. C., & Mark, J. B.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Durham VA Medical Center (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Trinity Health (US)
Corresponding author
  • Segall, Noa
  • Schroeder, Rebecca A.
Venue
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Published
2012-07
Volume
115
Issue
1
Pages
102-115
ISSN
0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107099173
Cited by
250
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Anesthesia & Analgesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K02HS015704)
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 › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Keywords
patient safety, communication errors, handover checklist, team communication, adverse events, information transmission
MeSH terms
Anesthesia Recovery Period, Clinical Protocols, Continuity of Patient Care, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Operating Rooms, Patient Care Team, Patient Transfer, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Postoperative Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Medical Errors, Guideline Adherence, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Interdisciplinary Communication, Checklist, Patient Safety

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