ArticleCritical care medicine2016
ICU Attending Handoff Practices: Results From a National Survey of Academic Intensivists.
Article in Critical care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived Impact of a Junior-Senior Inpatient Team Model on Clinical Workflow, Supervision, and Workload in a Tertiary Gastroenterology Department: A Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Post In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Simulation to Improve Medical Decision Making and Communication in Internal Medicine Residents.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2026Article
- I-PASS-Based Handoff Pilot in a High-Volume Urban Hospital: Benefits and Barriers for Hospitalists.Cureus · 2025Article
- The portfolio effect: an opportunity for improving handoffs quality in ICU.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Article
- A Research Agenda for Diagnostic Excellence in Critical Care Medicine.Critical care clinics · 2022Review
- Attitudes of healthcare providers towards cardiac donation after circulatory determination of death: a Canadian nation-wide survey.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2020Article
- More than one in three proxies do not know their loved one's current code status: An observational study in a Maryland ICU.PloS one · 2019Observational
- Practical strategies for increasing efficiency and effectiveness in critical care education.World journal of critical care medicine · 2017Review
- Information handoff and outcomes of critically ill patients transferred between hospitals.Journal of critical care · 2016Observational
- The Effectiveness of the Multiple-Attending-Physicians System Compared With the Single Attending-Physician System in Inpatient Setting: A Mixed-Method Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
- What every intensivist should know about handovers in the intensive care unit.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensivaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo characterize intensivist handoff practices and expectations and to explore perceptions of the patient safety implications of attending handoffs.
designCross-sectional electronic survey administered in 2014.
settingOne hundred sixty-nine U.S. hospitals with critical care training programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. SUBJECTS: Academic intensivists were recruited via e-mail invitation from a database of 1,712 eligible academic intensivists.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsSix hundred sixty-one intensivists completed the survey (completion rate, 38.6%). Responses were received from at least one individual at 147 of 169 unique hospitals (87.0%) represented in the study database. Five hundred seventy-three (87%) respondents reported participating in handoffs at the end of each ICU rotation. A variety of communication methods were used for end-of-rotation handoffs, including in-person discussion (92.9%), telephone calls (83.9%), e-mail messages (69.0%), computer-generated documents (64.6%), and text messages (23.6%). Mean satisfaction with current handoff process was rated as 68.4 on a scale from 0 to 100 (SD, 22.6). Respondents (55.4%) said that attending handoffs should be standardized, but only 13.3% (76/572) of those participating in end-of-rotation handoffs reported using a standardized process. Specific handoff topics, including active clinical issues and resuscitation status, were reportedly discussed less frequently than would be ideal (p < 0.001 for the difference between reported frequency and ideal frequency). In free-text comments, 76 respondents (11.5%) expressed skepticism that attending handoffs were necessary given the presence of residents and fellows and given a lack of agreement about necessary content. Two hundred respondents (30.8%) reported knowing of an adverse event (inappropriate treatment, cardiac arrest, and death) attributable to inadequate attending handoffs.
conclusionsICU attending handoffs in the United States exhibit marked heterogeneity, and intensivists do not agree about the value of attending handoffs. In addition, some intensivists perceive a link between suboptimal attending handoffs, inappropriate treatment, and serious adverse events that warrants further study.
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.