ArticleBMJ open quality2022
Impact of customised ICU handover protocol on the quality of ICU discharge reports.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospital ward transitions and outcomes in critical care survivors: A multi-hospital cohort study.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2026Article
- Article
- Analyzing and mitigating the risks of patient harm during operating room to intensive care unit patient handoffs.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Article
- Validating the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument for Intensive Care Unit-Ward Transfer Notes.ATS scholar · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this investigation was to evaluate the impact of implementing a handover protocol, based on a standardised mnemonic tool specific for a cardiovascular intensive care unit (ICU), on the quality of information transferred during ICU discharge.
methodsIn this prospective pre-post study, we evaluated the implementation of an ICU discharge handover protocol in 168 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The primary outcome was the quality of the information. In the preintervention phase, 84 ICU standard discharge reports were evaluated. During the intervention period, a new handover protocol which included a written discharge report based on the I-PASS (illness severity, patient summary, action list, situation awareness and contingency plans, and synthesis by receiver) mnemonic tool was implemented. After the intervention, 84 new reports were assessed. The reports were evaluated by the ward physicians and by an external independent examiner using a standardised questionnaire. ICU discharge time and postoperative length of stay were also analysed.
resultsThe overall quality of the reports was evaluated as 'completely understood' by the ward physicians in 17 patients (21%) in the preintervention phase compared with 45 patients (54.9%) in the postintervention phase (p<0.001). The independent examiner classified one report (1.2% of the total number) as 'excellent' in the preintervention phase and 30 (35.7%) in the postintervention phase (p<0.001). After protocol implementation, patients were released from the ICU 58 min later (p<0.001). There was no difference in the length of postoperative hospital stay.
conclusionImplementation of a customised handover protocol when discharging patients from the ICU was associated with improvement in the quality of the information transferred but also with ICU discharge occurring at a later time of day.
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.