Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22316097›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2012

A handoff is not a telegram: an understanding of the patient is co-constructed.

Michael D Cohen, Brian Hilligoss, André Carlos Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of electronic reminders on venous thromboprophylaxis after admissions and transfers.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014
    Trial
  3. Enhancing Structured Team Communication in Acute Care Settings with Ambient AI Scribes.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  4. Medical handovers: tacit consensus on interaction.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael D CohenSchool of Information, University of Michigan, 3442 North Quad, 105 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285, USA. mdc@umich.edu
Brian Hilligoss
André Carlos Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral

Funding

Patient Handoffs between Emergency Department and Inpatient PhysiciansR36HS018758 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HILLIGOSS, PHILLIP BRIAN · 2010 to 2010
$32k
AHRQ HHS R36HS018758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hospital handoffs are believed to be a key locus of communication breakdown that can endanger patient safety and undermine quality of care. Substantial new efforts to better understand handoffs and to improve handoff practices are under way. Many such efforts appear to be seriously hampered, however, by an underlying presumption that the essential function of a handoff is one-way information transmission. Here, we examine social science literature that supports a richer framing of handoff conversations, one that characterizes them as co-constructions of an understanding of the patient.

Indexed as

CommunicationContinuity of Patient CareHumansPatient SafetyPatient Transfer

Identifiers

PMID22316097
PMCPMC3396216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.