Cited by 21Hospital Admissions and OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsInnovations in Medical Education

I-PASS Adherence and Implications for Future Handoff Training

Open access
Hughes, Helen K., Serwint, Janet R., O'Toole, Jennifer K., Spector, Nancy D., Ngo, Thuy L.·2019·Journal of Graduate Medical Education

Abstract

Background: A formal handoff process, such as the I-PASS handoff program, can improve communication about patients among residents. Faculty observation of resident handoffs has served as the primary method for documenting adherence to I-PASS, and little is known about residents' use when they are not being observed. Objective: We determined how frequently pediatric residents use I-PASS when not being observed. Methods: We implemented I-PASS in the 2016–2017 academic year and anonymously surveyed residents (December 2016 and June 2017), asking them how they perceive the effectiveness of I-PASS at enhancing patient safety, their frequency of I-PASS use when not observed, co-residents' frequency of use, and open-ended questions regarding factors affecting use. Results: Fifty-one (52%) and 50 (51%) of 99 eligible residents completed the December and June surveys, respectively. All respondents thought I-PASS had some effectiveness in enhancing patient safety. In December, only 6 (12%) residents stated they used I-PASS more than 75% of the time and reported providing a synthesis statement during handoffs more than 75% of the time. The results were similar for both surveys. Commonly cited reasons for not using I-PASS included time (n = 30), prior knowledge of patients (n = 20), and patients with limited complexity (n = 9). Conclusions: While most residents thought I-PASS was effective at enhancing patient safety, many reported that they do not use all 5 elements in most of their handoffs when not being observed. Barriers reported included time, familiarity with patients, and limited patient complexity.

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 · 10.4300/jgme-d-18-01086.1

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • The data surrounding surgical patients are voluminous and diverse while simultaneously incomplete, which strains the ability of receiving nurses to review and assimilate it de novo.

    “The data surrounding surgical patients are voluminous and diverse while simultaneously incomplete, which strains the ability of receiving nurses to review and assimilate it de novo.8–10”

    From Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Background and Conclusion (pages unavailable) address I-PASS use during pediatric resident handoffs, not receiving nurses reviewing surgical-patient data. The Results mention complex patients and time constraints, but do not address the claimed volume, diversity, or incompleteness of surgical-patient data. Searches for surgical patients, receiving nurses, and incomplete handoff information found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [12]Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd;; 2003. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, H. K., Serwint, J. R., O'Toole, J. K., Spector, N. D., & Ngo, T. L.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Helen K. Hughes, MD, MPH, is Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Associate Program Director, Harriet Lane Pediatric Residency Program, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Janet R. Serwint, MD, is Professor Emeritus and Former Pediatric Residency Program Director, Harriet Lane Pediatric Residency Program, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Jennifer K. O'Toole, MD, MEd, is Asso
Corresponding author
Hughes, Helen K.
Venue
Journal of Graduate Medical Education
Published
2019-06-01
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
301-306
ISSN
  • 1949-8349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1949-8357
OpenAlex
W2944384152
Cited by
21
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Graduate Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
patient handover, patient safety, pediatric residents
MeSH terms
Continuity of Patient Care, Hospitals, Pediatric, Humans, Internship and Residency, Maryland, Pediatrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, 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