ArticleBMJ quality & safety2014
Sign-out snapshot: cross-sectional evaluation of written sign-outs among specialties.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating Outcomes of Electronic Tools Supporting Physician Shift-to-Shift Handoffs: A Systematic Review.Journal of graduate medical education · 2015Pooled it
- Obstetric shift-to-shift handover in Kerala, India: A cross-sectional mixed method study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Internal medicine residents' evaluation of fevers overnight.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Article
- Comparative assessment of content overlap between written documentation and verbal communication: an observational study of resident sign-outs.JAMIA open · 2018Article
- Choosing Wisely Overnight? Residents' Approach to Fever.Open forum infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Electronic handoff instruments: a truly multidisciplinary tool?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSign-out is the process (written, verbal or both) by which one clinical team transmits information about patients to another team. Poor quality sign-outs are associated with adverse events and delayed treatment. How different specialties approach written sign-outs is unknown.
objectiveTo compare written sign-out practices across specialties and to determine consistency of content, format and timeliness.
methodsThe authors evaluated all non-Intensive Care Unit written sign-outs from five inpatient specialties on 18 January 2012, at Yale-New Haven Hospital, focusing on content elements, format style and whether the sign-outs had been updated within 24 h. In our institution, all specialties used a single standardised sign-out template, which was built into the electronic medical record.
resultsThe final cohort included 457 sign-outs: 313 medicine, 64 general surgery, 36 paediatrics, 30 obstetrics, and 14 gynaecology. Though nearly all sign-outs (96%) had been updated within 24 h, they frequently lacked key information. Hospital course prevalence ranged from 57% (gynaecology) to 100% (paediatrics) (p<0.001). Clinical condition prevalence ranged from 34% (surgery) to 72% (paediatrics) (p=0.005).
conclusionsSpecialties have varied sign-out practices, and thus structured templates alone do not guarantee inclusion of critical content. Sign-outs across specialties often lacked complex clinical information such as clinical condition, anticipatory guidance and overnight tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.