ArticleBMC medical education2017
Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
Article in BMC medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The use of Introduction, Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation handover in the COVID-19 pandemic and non-COVID clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in health services · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- The effect of an ISBAR-based clinical supervision model during handover on clinical decision-making and self-efficacy of nursing internship students: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- It sounds like a good handover but can I trust it: the correlation between perceived quality and accuracy?MedEdPublish (2016) · 2021Article
- Teaching clinical handover with ISBAR.BMC medical education · 2020Review
- Article
- The impact on internship of a tailored intern preparation package.Advances in medical education and practice · 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
backgroundGood clinical handover is critical to safe medical care. Little research has investigated handover in rural settings. In a remote setting where nurses and medical students give telephone handover to an aeromedical retrieval service, we developed a tool by which the receiving clinician might assess the handover; and investigated factors impacting on the reliability and validity of that assessment.
methodsResearchers consulted with clinicians to develop an assessment tool, based on the ISBAR handover framework, combining validity evidence and the existing literature. The tool was applied 'live' by receiving clinicians and from recorded handovers by academic assessors. The tool's performance was analysed using generalisability theory. Receiving clinicians and assessors provided feedback.
resultsReliability for assessing a call was good (G = 0.73 with 4 assessments). The scale had a single factor structure with good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.8). The group mean for the global score for nurses and students was 2.30 (SD 0.85) out of a maximum 3.0, with no difference between these sub-groups.
conclusionsWe have developed and evaluated a tool to assess high-stakes handover in a remote setting. It showed good reliability and was easy for working clinicians to use. Further investigation and use is warranted beyond this setting.
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.