ArticleHealth science reports2024
Peer review for handoff education in a transition to residency course: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. 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.
- Why don't we teach medical students to work in chaos?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Peer review for handoff education in a transition to residency course: A prospective cohort study.Health science reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandate training in handoff delivery for students and residents. Communication errors, including errors during handoffs of patient care, account for over 2/3 of sentinel events. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of peer-assisted learning (PAL) in handoff education within a longitudinal framework. Methods: This study involved the analysis of fourth-year medical students ( Results: Overall, students demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in handoff quality and accuracy across all scoring criteria after completing the peer evaluation process. Peer evaluations did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in scores for quality or accuracy questions as compared to faculty. Conclusion: Peer evaluators effectively assessed handoff reports using the modified I-PASS checklist yielding outcomes similar to faculty while providing feedback. These findings provide exciting evidence that should prompt training programs to consider incorporating standardized peer review into handoff education for medical students and, potentially, residents. The detailed evaluation of individual handoff events fosters feedback skills essential for ongoing professional growth and clinical excellence.
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.