ArticleBMC medical education2024
Secondary analysis of hand-offs in internal medicine using the I-PASS mnemonic.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. 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.
- Enhancing Nurses' Handoff Practices Through Simulation-Based I-PASS Training: An Evidence-Based Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Article
- ISOBAR Implementation for Patient Handover Between Rescue Services and Pediatric Emergency Department Staff: The COPTER-PED Trial.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Using I-PASS to improve nursing handoffs across the continuum of care at a tertiary oncology hospital.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
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
backgroundMiscommunications account for up to 80% of preventable medical errors. Mnemonics like I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Actions list, Situation awareness, Synthesis) have demonstrated a positive impact on reducing error rates. Currently, physicians at our hospital do not follow a specific structure during hand-offs. We aimed to compare current hand-offs without prior training to a gold standard and the I-PASS tool in terms of content and sequence.
methodsThis study is a secondary analysis of data collected during a simulation study of a Friday evening hand-off to the night resident at University Hospitals of Geneva. Thirty physicians received a hand-off of four patients and managed two other patients through nursing pages at the start of the night shift, generating six sign-outs each, totaling 177 sign-outs. A focus group of three senior doctors defined the gold standard (GS) by consensus on the essential content of each sign-out. The analysis focused on the rates of relevance (ratio of information considered relevant by the GS) and completeness (proportion of transmitted elements out of all expected elements of the GS), and the distribution and sequence of the first four I-PASS categories.
resultsRelevance and completeness rates were 37.2% ± 0.07 and 51.9% ± 0.1, respectively, with no significant difference between residents and supervisors. There was a positive correlation between total hand-off time and relevance (residents: R
conclusionWe identified gaps between current medical sign-outs in our institution's general internal medicine division and the I-PASS structure. We recommend implementing the I-PASS mnemonic, emphasizing the "I" category at the start and the "S" category to anticipate and prevent complications. Future studies should assess the impact of this recommendation, adapt the mnemonic elements to the context, and introduce specific hand-off training for senior medical students.
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.