Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39246636›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Improving the Accuracy of the Gynaecology Handover Process: An Effective Quality Improvement Project at a University Hospital in the United Kingdom.

Indranil Banerjee, Gargi Mukherjee, Sujatha Kalburgi, Abhyuday Chanda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Indranil BanerjeeObstetrics and Gynaecology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, GBR.
Gargi MukherjeeObstetrics and Gynaecology, Medway Maritime Hospital, Medway NHS Foundation Trust, Gillingham, GBR.
Sujatha KalburgiObstetrics and Gynaecology, Basildon University Hospital, Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Basildon, GBR.
Abhyuday ChandaBiostatistics, Benaras Hindu University, Varanasi, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to introduce a new system of handover in the gynaecology department and ensure its effectiveness with dynamic improvement measures. This was launched as a quality improvement project in a district general hospital in the United Kingdom. The primary aim was to start and consolidate a new system of a separate gynaecology handover in the presence of consultants, registrars (incoming and outgoing), senior house officers (incoming and outgoing) and gynaecology nurses. Design The strategy for consolidation included a daily quality review on the basis of a fixed proforma, identifying the obstacles faced, and improvising dynamic solutions. A new quality check proforma was introduced which took into account: (i) Presence of team members, (ii) Following of proper SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) format in the handover, (iii) Updating of patients awaiting surgeries with every detail on the list, (iv) Proper handing over of pending referrals, (v) Mention of sick patients with proper importance, and (vi) Proper handing over of new admissions. A pilot study was done to evaluate the baseline performance of the unit regarding the gynaecology team handover on the basis of the same proforma. The result of the baseline study was noted as the reference. Each day the team receiving the handover was interviewed for the next five months about the quality of each of the parameters on the predesigned proforma and the responses were noted. The answers were designed in binary form (Yes/No). These results were compiled at the end of each month. The result from each individual month was reviewed and the problems were identified and practical solutions were applied. These changes were noted and plotted graphically as a bar diagram. The monthly audit results were tabulated in an Excel sheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States). Results Pilot study results and final month results were compared with the help of the Mcnemar test and statistically significant improvement was noticed in seven out of eleven parameters. There was a steady and gradual improvement in the responses. The possible limitations of the study were also noted at the same time. Conclusion The quality improvement project was highly effective in improving the quality of handover and increased patient safety to a large extent.

Indexed as

gynaecology and obstetricspatient safety culturequality improvement projectssafe patient handoversbar toolsurgical handover

Identifiers

PMID39246636
PMCPMC11380545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.