ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2015
Initial assessment of patient handoff in accredited general surgery residency programs in the United States and Canada: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Efficacy of a blended learning programme in enhancing the communication skill competence and self-efficacy of nursing students in conducting clinical handovers: a randomised controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2022Trial
- Newly qualified general nurses' experiences of pre-registration internship: A Republic of Ireland cross-sectional study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Emergency General Surgery Handover: A Prospective Feasibility Study.The Journal of surgical research · 2024Article
- Article
- Patient handoffs among general surgery residents in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Weekend surgical handover enhances early management of acute clinical changes using a red flag system.Irish journal of medical science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunication errors are considered one of the major causes of sentinel events. Our aim was to assess the process of patient handoff among junior surgical residents and to determine ways in which to improve the handoff process.
methodsWe conducted nationwide surveys that included all accredited general surgery residency programs in the United States and Canada.
resultsOf the 244 American and 17 Canadian accredited surgical residency programs contacted, 65 (27%) and 12 (71%), respectively, participated in the survey. Of the American and Canadian respondents, 66% and 69%, respectively, were from postgraduate year (PGY) 1, and 32% and 29%, respectively, were from PGY 2; 85 (77%) and 50 (96%), respectively, had not received any training about patient handoff before their surgical residency, and 27% and 64%, respectively, reported that the existing handoff system at their institutions did not adequately protect patient safety. Moreover, 29% of American respondents and 37% of Canadian respondents thought that the existing handoffs did not support continuity of patient care. Of the American residents, 67% and 6% reported receiving an incomplete handoff that resulted in minor and major patient harm, respectively. These results mirrored those from Canadian residents (63% minor and 7% major harm). The most frequent factor reported to improve the patient handoff process was standardization of the verbal handoff.
conclusionOur survey results indicate that the current patient handoff system contributes to patient harm. More efforts are needed to establish standardized forms of verbal and written handoff to ensure patient safety and continuity of care.
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.