ArticleAcademic pediatrics2016
Reliability of Verbal Handoff Assessment and Handoff Quality Before and After Implementation of a Resident Handoff Bundle.
Article in Academic pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- It sounds like a good handover but can I trust it: the correlation between perceived quality and accuracy?MedEdPublish (2016) · 2021Article
- Advancing Our Understanding of Narrative Comments Generated by Direct Observation Tools: Lessons From the Psychopharmacotherapy-Structured Clinical Observation.Journal of graduate medical education · 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
objective1) To develop validity evidence for the use of the Verbal Handoff Assessment Tool (VHAT) and examine the reliability of VHAT scores, and 2) to determine whether implementation of a resident handoff bundle (RHB) was associated with improved verbal patient handoffs among pediatric resident physicians.
methodsIn a pre-post design, prospectively audio recorded verbal patient handoffs conducted at Boston Children's Hospital before and after implementation of the RHB were rated using the VHAT, which was developed for this study (primary outcome). Using generalizability theory, we evaluated the reliability of VHAT scores.
resultsOverall, VHAT scores increased after RHB implementation (mean 142 vs 191, possible score 0-500; P < .0001). When accounting for clustering according to resident physician, hospital unit, unit census, and patient complexity, implementation of the RHB was associated with a 63-point increase in VHAT score. Using generalizability theory, we determined that a resident's mean VHAT score on the basis of a handoff of 15 patients assessed by a single observer was sufficiently reliable for relative ranking decisions (ie, norm-based; generalizability coefficient, 0.81), whereas a VHAT score on the basis of a handoff of 21 patients would be sufficiently reliable for high-stakes, standard-based decisions (Phi, 0.80).
conclusionsVerbal handoffs improved after implementation of a RHB, although gains were variable across the 2 clinical units. The VHAT shows promise as an assessment tool for resident handoff skills. If used for competency or entrustment decisions, a resident's mean VHAT score should be on the basis of observation of verbal handoff of ≥21 patients.
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.