ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2017
Introduction of the identification, situation, background, assessment, recommendations tool to improve the quality of information transfer during medical handover in intensive care.
Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Patient Safety in General Hospitals Using Structured Handoffs: Outcomes From a National Project.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Completeness of the operating room to intensive care unit handover: a matter of time?BMC anesthesiology · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo audit the quality and safety of the current doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. If deficient, to implement a validated handover tool to improve the quality of the handover process.
methodsIn Cycle 1 we observed the verbal handover and reviewed the written handover information transferred for 50 consecutive patients in St George's Hospital Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. For each patient's handover, we assessed whether each section of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool was used on a scale of 0-2. Zero if no information in that category was transferred, one if the information was partially transferred and two if all relevant information was transferred. Each patient's handover received a score from 0 to 10 and thus, each cycle a total score of 0-500. Following the implementation of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations handover tool in our Intensive Care Unit in Cycle 2, we re-observed the handover process for another 50 consecutive patients hence, completing the audit cycle.
resultsThere was a significant difference between the total scores from Cycle 1 and 2 (263/500 versus 457/500, p < 0.001). The median handover score for Cycle 1 was 5/10 (interquartile range 4-6). The median handover score for Cycle 2 was 9/10 (interquartile range 9-10). Patient handover scores increased significantly between Cycle 1 and 2, U = 13.5, p < 0.001.
conclusionsThe introduction of a standardised handover template (Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool) has improved the quality and safety of the doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Intensive Care Unit.
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.