SynthesisBMJ open2025
Patient perceptions of outcomes used to evaluate in-hospital handover interventions: a rapid review of qualitative data.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHigh quality handover is critical for patient safety and care continuity. Existing practice is based on a weak evidence base in which the patient voice is poorly captured. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes of importance to patients, families and carers regarding interventions to improve in-hospital handover between healthcare practitioners.
designA rapid systematic review of qualitative literature was carried out after prospective registration with PROSPERO and was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines. DATA SOURCES: The Ovid MEDLINE database was searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Qualitative or mixed-methods studies reporting patient, family or caregiver perspectives on in-hospital handovers were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Synthesis was informed by the best-fit framework approach using a published taxonomy of handover-related outcomes and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Outcomes were reported according to two distinct types of handover: bedside (patient-involved) and provider-focused (patient-uninvolved).
resultsA total of 34 studies, including 1262 participants across a range of specialties and predominantly high-income settings, were analysed. 53 bedside and 31 provider-focused handover outcomes were identified according to four domains; adverse events, quality of patient care, quality of handover and patient/caregiver satisfaction. Bedside handover studies frequently reported outcomes relating to patient engagement and communication with healthcare staff. One study was carried out in a low income country; however, outcomes identified were broadly similar.
conclusionsThese findings expand the known outcomes for evaluating handover interventions and highlight the importance of prioritising the patient and public perspective in research. This work will contribute to developing a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover but can also be applied to handover practices for any other discipline within the hospital environment. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023493367.
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.