McCarthy Sean, Motala Aneesa, Lawson Emily, Shekelle Paul G
West Los Angeles Vet Adm, Los Angeles, California, USA
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2025 Apr 29. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018385.
Handoffs 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.
As 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.
We 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.
We 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.
The 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.
CRD42024576324.
患者交接是住院患者临床护理链条中的薄弱环节。由于值班时间的变化,科室内部的交接频率正在增加。在医疗服务提供者之间规范关键信息报告具有充分的理由,并且此类做法已被其他行业采用。
作为“让医疗更安全IV”项目的一部分,我们回顾了过去10年中关于使用结构化交接协议对急性护理医院科室患者安全结果影响的证据。
我们在四个数据库中检索了任何设计的系统评价和原始研究,这些研究评估了结构化交接协议并报告了患者安全结果。筛选和纳入标准由两人独立进行,数据提取由一名评审员完成,并由另一名评审员进行核对。结果的综合采用叙述性方式。证据的确定性基于为“让医疗更安全IV”项目修改的推荐分级评估、制定和评价框架。
我们检索了12种交接工具的证据。两项关于情况、背景、评估、建议(SBAR)的系统评价(包括11项和28项原始研究;其中5项和15项是关于在交接中的应用)以及两项较新的原始研究提供了低确定性证据,表明SBAR工具可改善患者安全结果。十项原始研究(约九项实施)提供了中等确定性证据,表明I-PASS工具(疾病严重程度、患者摘要、行动清单、情况意识、向接收者综合汇报)可减少医疗差错和不良事件。没有其他结构化交接工具在一项以上的研究或一种以上的环境中得到评估。
用于科室内部交接的SBAR和I-PASS结构化工具可能会改善患者安全,其中I-PASS的证据确定性更强。其他已发表的工具缺乏足够证据得出结论。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42024576324。