Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40306923›Full record

SynthesisBMJ quality & safety2025

Use of structured handoff protocols for within-hospital unit transitions: a systematic review from Making Healthcare Safer IV.

Sean McCarthy, Aneesa Motala, Emily Lawson, Paul G Shekelle

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ quality & safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Standardizing Tracheostomy Discharge Education Using an Interdisciplinary Hand-off Form: A Quality Improvement Study.ORL-head and neck nursing : official journal of the Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head-Neck Nurses · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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.

Sean McCarthyWest Los Angeles Vet Adm, Los Angeles, California, USA Sean.McCarthy1@va.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-3939-1481
Aneesa MotalaRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0840-8580
Emily LawsonRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Paul G ShekelleWest Los Angeles Vet Adm, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHandoffs are a weak link in the chain of clinical care of inpatients. Within-unit handoffs are increasing in frequency due to changes in duty hours. There are strong rationales for standardising the reporting of critical information between providers, and such practices have been adopted by other industries.

objectivesAs part of Making Healthcare Safer IV we reviewed the evidence from the last 10 years that the use of structured handoff protocols influences patient safety outcomes within acute care hospital units.

methodsWe searched four databases for systematic reviews and original research studies of any design that assessed structured handoff protocols and reported patient safety outcomes. Screening and eligibility were done in duplicate, while data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The synthesis of results is narrative. Certainty of evidence was based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework as modified for Making Healthcare Safer IV.

resultsWe searched for evidence on 12 handoff tools. Two systematic reviews of Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR) (including 11 and 28 original research studies; 5 and 15 were about the use in handoffs) and two newer original research studies provided low certainty evidence that the SBAR tool improves patient safety outcomes. Ten original research studies (about nine implementations) provided moderate certainty evidence that the I-PASS tool (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness, Synthesis to receiver) reduces medical errors and adverse events. No other structured handoff tool was assessed in more than one study or one setting.

conclusionThe SBAR and I-PASS structured tools for within-unit handoffs probably improve patient safety, with I-PASS having a stronger certainty of evidence. Other published tools lack sufficient evidence to draw conclusions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024576324.

Indexed as

Patient HandoffPatient SafetyPatient TransferHumansHand-offPatient SafetyQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID40306923
PMCPMC12232517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.