A Systematic Review of Postoperative Care Transition Interventions: Examining the Implementation of Handoff Protocols and Checklists.

Caoimhe C Duffy,Gina Lepore,Gary A Bass,Joanna Abraham
{"title":"A Systematic Review of Postoperative Care Transition Interventions: Examining the Implementation of Handoff Protocols and Checklists.","authors":"Caoimhe C Duffy,Gina Lepore,Gary A Bass,Joanna Abraham","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000007523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Perioperative care transitions or handoffs represent a high-risk period frequently compromised by communication failures and the loss of essential patient information. Handoffs play a pivotal role in mitigating these risks. A comprehensive assessment of implementation and clinical outcomes is essential to identify protocols that enhance patient safety, improve care quality, and support reproducibility. This study identifies and synthesizes existing evidence on handoff strategies, evaluating their impact on both implementation success and clinical outcomes. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases was conducted to identify observational and descriptive studies addressing preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative handoffs. Eligible studies were published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals. The selection process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and study quality was evaluated using the Quality Scoring System. Eleven studies evaluating the impact of handoff interventions on both implementation and clinical outcomes were included. Key implementation outcomes, including sustainability and acceptability, were commonly assessed through staff satisfaction surveys. Clinical outcomes included length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and pain scores. All studies incorporated a structured preimplementation planning phase and reported significant improvements in at least 1 implementation outcome, with acceptability being the most consistently improved measure. Each study demonstrated meaningful improvements in at least 1 implementation outcome, while 7 of 11 studies reported significant enhancements in clinical outcomes. The consistent success of various methodologies-whether through expert consultation, frontline involvement, or quality improvement strategies-indicates that a tailored, site-specific approach may be more critical to success than the specific intervention strategy used.","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":"106 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000007523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Perioperative care transitions or handoffs represent a high-risk period frequently compromised by communication failures and the loss of essential patient information. Handoffs play a pivotal role in mitigating these risks. A comprehensive assessment of implementation and clinical outcomes is essential to identify protocols that enhance patient safety, improve care quality, and support reproducibility. This study identifies and synthesizes existing evidence on handoff strategies, evaluating their impact on both implementation success and clinical outcomes. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases was conducted to identify observational and descriptive studies addressing preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative handoffs. Eligible studies were published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals. The selection process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and study quality was evaluated using the Quality Scoring System. Eleven studies evaluating the impact of handoff interventions on both implementation and clinical outcomes were included. Key implementation outcomes, including sustainability and acceptability, were commonly assessed through staff satisfaction surveys. Clinical outcomes included length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and pain scores. All studies incorporated a structured preimplementation planning phase and reported significant improvements in at least 1 implementation outcome, with acceptability being the most consistently improved measure. Each study demonstrated meaningful improvements in at least 1 implementation outcome, while 7 of 11 studies reported significant enhancements in clinical outcomes. The consistent success of various methodologies-whether through expert consultation, frontline involvement, or quality improvement strategies-indicates that a tailored, site-specific approach may be more critical to success than the specific intervention strategy used.
术后护理过渡干预的系统回顾:检查交接协议和清单的实施。
围手术期护理过渡或交接是一个高风险时期,经常受到沟通失败和患者基本信息丢失的影响。交接在减轻这些风险方面发挥着关键作用。对实施和临床结果的全面评估对于确定可增强患者安全、提高护理质量和支持可重复性的方案至关重要。本研究确定并综合了关于交接策略的现有证据,评估了它们对实施成功和临床结果的影响。对PubMed、EMBASE和CINAHL数据库进行系统检索,以确定关于术前、术中和术后交接的观察性和描述性研究。符合条件的研究发表在同行评议的英语期刊上。选择过程遵循系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目,并使用质量评分系统评估研究质量。11项研究评估了交接干预对实施和临床结果的影响。主要的实施成果,包括可持续性和可接受性,通常通过员工满意度调查进行评估。临床结果包括住院时间、机械通气持续时间和疼痛评分。所有研究都纳入了结构化的实施前计划阶段,并报告了至少一项实施结果的显著改善,可接受性是最一致的改进措施。每项研究都证明了至少1项实施结果的显著改善,而11项研究中有7项报告了临床结果的显著改善。各种方法的持续成功——无论是通过专家咨询、一线参与还是质量改进策略——表明,量身定制的、针对特定地点的方法可能比所使用的特定干预策略更能取得成功。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信