Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26913056›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2016

Surgeon agreement at the time of handover, a prospective cohort study.

Richard Hilsden, Bradley Moffat, Sarah Knowles, Neil Parry, Ken Leslie

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Richard HilsdenDepartment of Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON N6A 5A5 Canada ; Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON Canada.
Bradley MoffatDepartment of Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON N6A 5A5 Canada ; Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON Canada.
Sarah KnowlesDepartment of Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON N6A 5A5 Canada ; Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON Canada.
Neil ParryDepartment of Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON N6A 5A5 Canada ; Department of Critical Care, London, On Canada.
Ken LeslieDepartment of Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Road, P.O. Box 5339, London, ON N6A 5A5 Canada.
Western University · CACARE Canada · CALondon Health Sciences Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute Care Surgical Teams are responsible for emergent surgical patients, and as such require regular handover and coordination between different surgeons. Despite the recent emergence of this model of care, minimal research has been conducted on the quality of patient handover and no research has attempted to determine the rate of clinical agreement or disagreement among surgeons participating in these teams.

methodsA prospective cohort study was carried out with our acute care surgical service at a tertiary care teaching hospital from January 2 to March 31 2012. At the conclusion of the daily morning handover, receiving surgeons were asked to indicate, on provided handover sheets, whether they agreed with the proposed management plan for each patient that was discussed. The specific aspects of care over which they disagreed were also described, and disagreements were classified a priori as major or minor. The primary outcome was the rate of disagreement over the handed over management plan.

resultsSix staff surgeons agreed to participate and a total of 417 unique patients were handed over during the study period. For the primary outcome, a total of 41 disagreements were recorded for a disagreement rate of 9.8 %. 15 of the 41 disagreements were classified as major, for a major disagreement rate of 3.6 %. Consultant to consultant disagreements were classified as major disagreements 63 % of the time, whereas consultant to resident disagreements were classified as major 31 % of the time (P = 0.217). On average, the age of patients for which a clinical disagreement occurred were older; 63 vs. 57 (P < 0.05).

conclusionsDespite the frequency of handovers in clinical practice, little research has been conducted to determine the rate of disagreement over patient management among surgeons participating working in academic centers. This study demonstrated that the rate of clinical disagreement is low among surgeons working in an tertiary care teaching hospital.

Indexed as

Acute care surgeryHandoverPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID26913056
PMCPMC4765098
OpenAlexW2277771655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.