ArticleCureus2021
Improving Clinical Handover on an Electronic Communication Platform: A Quality Improvement Project.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- The effects of electronic nursing handover on patient safety in the general (non-COVID-19) and COVID-19 intensive care units: a quasi-experimental study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
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
Background National guidance stipulates the essential components of a safe handover. Shift-based work and the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased turnover and re-deployment of staff into new clinical areas, creating challenges in delivering effective handovers. Aim The aim of this quality improvement project (QIP) was to improve adherence to a local standardised handover proforma to improve the quality and consistency of handovers. Methods Handovers were assessed by measuring the completion rates of the essential components of a safe handover as outlined in the national guidance. Data were collected from an electronic handover system which follows the Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations (SBAR) structure, and percentage completion rates obtained for each component assessed. Following baseline measurement, four Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were completed between August 2020 and February 2021 across two junior doctor rotations and during a COVID surge rota. Results A total of 710 handovers were assessed across the four PDSA cycles. There were overall improvements in the percentage completion rates of each component compared to baseline: Under 'Situation', admission dates increased by 13.7%, estimated discharge date by 33.3% and 100% completion rate maintained for the presenting complaint. Under 'Background', past medical history remained static, with a 12.1% increase in documentation of a social history. Under 'Assessment', escalation status increased by 335%, issues list by 242% and important updates by 35.2%. Under 'Recommendations', completion rate for plans was maintained at 100%. Conclusions Our findings demonstrated an overall improvement in the majority of components of the handover proforma. Challenges remain with the rotation of junior doctors through different specialties leading to a loss of institutional knowledge and reduced longevity of the intervention's effect, exacerbated by the introduction of the COVID surge rota. A long-lasting improvement may require a shift to a completely electronic patient records system (ePR) which incorporates a handover tool.
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.