Handoff Mnemonics Used in Perioperative Handoff Intervention Studies: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anesthesia and analgesia Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-26 DOI:10.1213/ANE.0000000000007261
Sabina M Patel, Sarah Fuller, Meghan M Michael, Emma C O'Hagan, Elizabeth H Lazzara, Lee Ann Riesenberg
{"title":"Handoff Mnemonics Used in Perioperative Handoff Intervention Studies: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Sabina M Patel, Sarah Fuller, Meghan M Michael, Emma C O'Hagan, Elizabeth H Lazzara, Lee Ann Riesenberg","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000007261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perioperative handoffs are known to present unique challenges to safe and effective patient care. Numerous national accrediting bodies have called for standardized, structured handoff processes. Handoff mnemonics provide a memory aid and standardized structure, as well as promote a shared mental model. We set out to identify perioperative handoff intervention studies that included a handoff mnemonic; critically assess process and patient outcome improvements that support specific mnemonics; and propose future recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of the English language perioperative handoff intervention literature designed to identify handoff mnemonic interventions. A comprehensive protocol was developed and registered (CRD42022363615). Searches were conducted using PubMed, Scopus, ERIC (EBSCO), Education Full Text (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Cochrane (January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2022). Pairs of trained reviewers were involved in all phases of the search and extraction process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-seven articles with 23 unique mnemonics met the inclusion criteria. Most articles were published after 2015 (29/37; 78%). Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR), and SBAR variants were used in over half of all studies (22/37; 59%), with 45% (10/22) reporting at least 1 statistically significant process improvement. Seventy percent of handoff mnemonics (26/37) were expanded into lists or checklists. Fifty-seven percent of studies (21/37) reported using an interdisciplinary/interprofessional team to develop the intervention. In 49% of all studies (18/37) at least 1 measurement tool was either previously published or the authors conducting some form of measurement tool validation. Forty-one percent of process measurement tools (11/27) had some form of validation. Although most studies used training/education as an implementation strategy (36/37; 97%), descriptions tended to be brief with few details and no study used interprofessional education. Twenty-seven percent of the identified studies (10/37) measured perception alone and 11% (4/37) measured patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While the evidence supporting one handoff mnemonic over others is weak, SBAR/SBAR variants have been studied more often in the perioperative environment demonstrating some process improvements. A key finding is that 70% of included studies converted their handoff mnemonic to a list or checklist. Finally, given the essential nature of effective handoffs to perioperative patient safety, it is crucial that handoff interventions are well developed, implemented, and evaluated. We propose 8 recommendations for future perioperative handoff mnemonic clinical interventions and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":"468-481"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12327505/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007261","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Perioperative handoffs are known to present unique challenges to safe and effective patient care. Numerous national accrediting bodies have called for standardized, structured handoff processes. Handoff mnemonics provide a memory aid and standardized structure, as well as promote a shared mental model. We set out to identify perioperative handoff intervention studies that included a handoff mnemonic; critically assess process and patient outcome improvements that support specific mnemonics; and propose future recommendations.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the English language perioperative handoff intervention literature designed to identify handoff mnemonic interventions. A comprehensive protocol was developed and registered (CRD42022363615). Searches were conducted using PubMed, Scopus, ERIC (EBSCO), Education Full Text (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Cochrane (January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2022). Pairs of trained reviewers were involved in all phases of the search and extraction process.

Results: Thirty-seven articles with 23 unique mnemonics met the inclusion criteria. Most articles were published after 2015 (29/37; 78%). Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR), and SBAR variants were used in over half of all studies (22/37; 59%), with 45% (10/22) reporting at least 1 statistically significant process improvement. Seventy percent of handoff mnemonics (26/37) were expanded into lists or checklists. Fifty-seven percent of studies (21/37) reported using an interdisciplinary/interprofessional team to develop the intervention. In 49% of all studies (18/37) at least 1 measurement tool was either previously published or the authors conducting some form of measurement tool validation. Forty-one percent of process measurement tools (11/27) had some form of validation. Although most studies used training/education as an implementation strategy (36/37; 97%), descriptions tended to be brief with few details and no study used interprofessional education. Twenty-seven percent of the identified studies (10/37) measured perception alone and 11% (4/37) measured patient outcomes.

Conclusions: While the evidence supporting one handoff mnemonic over others is weak, SBAR/SBAR variants have been studied more often in the perioperative environment demonstrating some process improvements. A key finding is that 70% of included studies converted their handoff mnemonic to a list or checklist. Finally, given the essential nature of effective handoffs to perioperative patient safety, it is crucial that handoff interventions are well developed, implemented, and evaluated. We propose 8 recommendations for future perioperative handoff mnemonic clinical interventions and research.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

围术期交接干预研究中使用的交接记忆法:系统回顾。
背景:众所周知,围手术期交接给安全有效的患者护理带来了独特的挑战。许多国家认证机构都呼吁建立标准化、结构化的交接流程。交接记忆法提供了一种记忆辅助工具和标准化结构,并促进了一种共享的心理模式。我们试图找出包含交接口诀的围手术期交接干预研究;批判性地评估支持特定口诀的流程和患者预后改善情况;并提出未来的建议:我们对英文版围手术期交接干预文献进行了系统性回顾,旨在确定交接记忆法干预措施。我们制定并注册了一项综合方案(CRD42022363615)。使用 PubMed、Scopus、ERIC (EBSCO)、Education Full Text (EBSCO)、EMBASE (Elsevier) 和 Cochrane(2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 5 月 31 日)进行了检索。一对训练有素的审稿人参与了搜索和提取过程的所有阶段:结果:37 篇文章和 23 个独特的助记词符合纳入标准。大多数文章发表于 2015 年之后(29/37;78%)。半数以上的研究(22/37;59%)使用了情况、背景、评估、建议(SBAR)和 SBAR 变体,45%(10/22)的研究报告了至少一项具有统计学意义的流程改进。70%的交接口诀(26/37)被扩展为清单或核对表。57%的研究(21/37)报告使用了跨学科/跨专业团队来制定干预措施。在 49% 的研究中(18/37),至少有一种测量工具是以前发表过的,或者作者对测量工具进行了某种形式的验证。41%的过程测量工具(11/27)经过了某种形式的验证。虽然大多数研究将培训/教育作为一种实施策略(36/37;97%),但描述往往很简短,细节很少,而且没有研究使用跨专业教育。在已确定的研究中,27%的研究(10/37)仅对感知进行了测量,11%的研究(4/37)对患者的结果进行了测量:虽然支持一种交接口诀优于其他口诀的证据很薄弱,但在围手术期环境中对 SBAR/SBAR 变体的研究较多,显示出一些流程改进。一个重要的发现是,70% 的纳入研究将其交接口诀转换为清单或核对表。最后,鉴于有效的交接对围术期患者安全的重要性,交接干预措施的制定、实施和评估至关重要。我们为未来围手术期交接记忆法的临床干预和研究提出了 8 项建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信