ArticleJournal of hospital medicine2014
A tool to measure shared clinical understanding following handoffs to help evaluate handoff quality.
Article in Journal of hospital medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Feedback and Assessment Tools for Handoffs: A Systematic Review.Journal of graduate medical education · 2017Pooled it
- The portfolio effect: an opportunity for improving handoffs quality in ICU.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- It sounds like a good handover but can I trust it: the correlation between perceived quality and accuracy?MedEdPublish (2016) · 2021Article
- Using a knowledge translation framework to identify barriers and supports to effective nursing handover: A focus group study.Heliyon · 2019Article
- Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?BMC medical education · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformation exchanged during handoffs contributes importantly to a team's shared mental model. There is no established instrument to measure shared clinical understanding as a marker of handoff quality.
objectiveTo study the reliability, validity, and feasibility of the pediatric cardiology Patient Knowledge Assessment Tool (PKAT), a novel instrument designed to measure shared clinical understanding for pediatric cardiac intensive care unit patients.
designTo estimate reliability, 10 providers watched 9 videotaped simulated handoffs and then completed a PKAT for each scenario. To estimate construct validity, we studied 90 handoffs in situ by having 4 providers caring for an individual patient each complete a PKAT following handoff. Construct validity was assessed by testing the effects of provider preparation and patient complexity on agreement levels.
settingA 24-bed pediatric cardiac intensive care unit in a freestanding children's hospital.
resultsVideo simulation results demonstrated score reliability. Average inter-rater agreement by item ranged from 0.71 to 1.00. During in situ testing, agreement by item ranged from 0.41 to 0.87 (median 0.77). Construct validity for some items was supported by lower agreement rates for patients with increased length of stay and increased complexity. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that the PKAT has high inter-rater reliability and can detect differences in understanding between handoff senders and receivers for routine and complex patients. Additionally, the PKAT is feasible for use in a real-time clinical environment. The PKAT or similar instruments could be used to study effects of handoff improvement efforts in inpatient settings.
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.