ArticleBMC nursing2026
Understanding nursing handoff errors in clinical practice: trends and contributing factors based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNursing handoff is a critical process in which essential patient and treatment-related information, as well as responsibilities, are exchanged to ensure quality of care and continuity of treatment. Errors during this process may lead to adverse clinical outcomes and compromise patient safety. This study aimed to systematically review the overall trends of and factors contributing to nursing handoff errors in clinical settings to enhance nurses’ awareness and understanding.
methodsFollowing a study protocol pre-registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024610621), a systematic review was conducted, including a comprehensive search of Public MEDLINE (PubMed), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, and Scopus. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed based on selected studies, adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
resultsTwelve studies were included in the systematic review, six of which were eligible for meta-analysis. The most commonly identified type of nursing handoff error was information omission. Contributing factors fell into four categories: handoff process complexity, environmental, organizational, and individual factors. The pooled proportion of nursing handoff errors derived from the meta-analysis of six studies was approximately 88% (pooled proportion = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.72 ~ 0.99; I² = 98%), indicating substantial variability across studies. This estimate represents the overall occurrence of reported handoff error types across the included studies.
conclusionsReducing nursing handoff errors requires a multidimensional approach encompassing the handoff communication process, physical environment, organizational systems, and individual nurse competencies. This study underscores the importance of targeting key error types and contributing factors to develop integrated strategies such as structured communication tools, standardized protocols, and competency-based training that collectively enhance handoff quality and patient safety. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.