ArticlePloS one2025
Improving the safety of outpatient to Emergency Department transfers: A quality improvement study in a tertiary hospital in Pakistan.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safety incidents during intrahospital transport of hemodialysis patients in China: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSafe and coordinated patient transfers are essential for reducing morbidity, mortality, and adverse events. In outpatient clinics, early recognition of patient deterioration and standardized transfer protocols are key to enhancing safety. This quality improvement initiative addresses these gaps by ensuring the timely identification of critically ill patients, prompt management, and efficient transfer to the emergency department.
methodsThis study was conducted in two phases. In the pre-implementation phase (August 1-September 14, 2022), a multidisciplinary panel employed a modified Delphi method to revise early warning signs for critically ill clinic patients and developed a structured handoff tool to improve transfer communication. The tool was pilot tested and refined. The implementation phase (September 15-November 30, 2022) included hospital-wide training through webinars and in-person sessions, with effectiveness evaluated in forty staff members using pre- and post-training assessments. The quality initiative, comprising revised early warning criteria and standardized handoff documentation, was formally rolled out on December 1, 2022. Prospective data collection continued for one year (December 2022-November 2023) to evaluate the impact.
resultsPost-test scores demonstrated significant improvement in staff knowledge, particularly in identifying critically ill patients and initiating appropriate interventions. Among 268 patients requiring transfer, the majority (51.49%) were aged ≥60 years, and 56.3% were male. The most common presenting complaint was acute respiratory distress (31.7%). Compliance with the handoff tool was high (≥70% in 65.6% of cases). However, prolonged emergency department (ED) stays (>7 hours in 45.5% of cases) and a 5.2% mortality rate underscored ongoing challenges in patient flow and triaging.
conclusionImplementing structured transfer protocols, staff training, and standardized handoff tools can significantly improve patient transfer safety and efficiency in outpatient settings. However, further refinements, including enhanced triaging and digitizing documentation practices, are necessary for sustainable improvement. This project highlights the importance of systematic approaches in optimizing intra-hospital transfers in low-resource settings.
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.