ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Development and implementation of paging and escalation guidelines to improve interprofessional communication on surgical units.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionSuboptimal interprofessional communication in the surgical inpatient setting has important implications for patient safety. Our departmental quality committee identified numerous safety events resulting from discordant expectations between surgical floor nurses and surgical residents or advanced practice providers (APPs) who serve as responding clinicians (RCs), and from reluctance to escalate clinical concerns. Alphanumeric paging is frequently used to communicate, but there are opportunities to enhance its effectiveness. This initiative sought to improve perceptions of communication and responsiveness between nurses and RCs by providing a shared language and set of expectations about the urgency of pages, appropriate responses and the process of escalation to other team members if necessary.
methodsAn interprofessional team of surgical faculty, nurses and residents solicited input from surgical floor nurses, operating room nurses, residents, APPs and attendings on their perceptions of communication barriers among team members via online surveys and focus groups. Guidelines were iteratively developed. They specify that every page should be classified as STAT, Urgent, Please Call or FYI. Each classification is associated with an expected response time and pathway for contacting alternative team members if no response is received. After 3 months of implementation on our hospital's two main general surgery units, follow-up online surveys with multiple-choice and free-response questions assessed perceived impacts on communication and clinical care. Differences in categorical variables were assessed with χ
resultsAfter implementation, nurses reported favourable effects on communication, including significantly improved responsiveness during night shifts and timeliness from RCs during day shifts. Residents and attendings perceived the intervention to have overall neutral to mildly positive effects on communication.
conclusionsPaging and Escalation Guidelines are a feasible approach to enhance the perceptions of communication between nurses and RCs by aligning expectations, streamlining responses and decreasing barriers to escalation.
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.