Eva Steinfeld, Karolina Dahms, Julia Dormann, Kelly Ansems, Heidrun Janka, Maria Inti-Metzendorf, Gernot Marx, Carina Benstoem, Thomas Breuer
{"title":"检验有效交接协议对多发创伤患者治疗结果的影响:一项系统综述。","authors":"Eva Steinfeld, Karolina Dahms, Julia Dormann, Kelly Ansems, Heidrun Janka, Maria Inti-Metzendorf, Gernot Marx, Carina Benstoem, Thomas Breuer","doi":"10.1007/s00068-025-02776-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Effective patient handovers in healthcare settings are critical for ensuring patient safety and care quality. Handover tools have gained prominence as potential aids in improving these transitions. This systematic review seeks to answer the question if the use of validated handover protocols leads to better treatment outcomes in polytrauma patients compared to no use of validated handover protocols.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science to identify relevant studies from inception of each database to June 15, 2022. We intended to include systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials comparing the use of validated handover tools to no use of such tools in adult polytrauma patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Despite the absence of systematic reviews and RCTs meeting our criteria, we included 26 initially excluded studies to glean insights into handover tool usage. This broader inclusion facilitated the identification of two categories of tools: standardized tools and customized tools. Among studies employing customized tools, positive outcomes were reported in various aspects, including enhanced information quality, improved staff communication, and reduced risks and treatment errors. In contrast, studies utilizing well-established standardized tools documented improvements in communication, documentation, and overall satisfaction among medical professionals, signaling a reduction in communication errors and lost information.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Heterogeneity of the studies and no trials meeting our eligibility criteria present challenges for conducting a traditional systematic review. In the lack of evidence from RCTs and systematic reviews, our analysis of the available studies sheds light on the complexities of assessing handover tools' utility, especially in diverse clinical settings. It highlights the need for more standardized methodologies and further investigation into the effectiveness of custom-designed tools. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the role of handover tools in healthcare. While some studies suggest positive outcomes, further research is necessary to elucidate the design and implementation of these tools to enhance care and support healthcare professionals in their roles.</p>","PeriodicalId":12064,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","volume":"51 1","pages":"109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11836088/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining the impact of validated handover protocols on treatment outcomes in polytrauma patients: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Eva Steinfeld, Karolina Dahms, Julia Dormann, Kelly Ansems, Heidrun Janka, Maria Inti-Metzendorf, Gernot Marx, Carina Benstoem, Thomas Breuer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00068-025-02776-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Effective patient handovers in healthcare settings are critical for ensuring patient safety and care quality. Handover tools have gained prominence as potential aids in improving these transitions. This systematic review seeks to answer the question if the use of validated handover protocols leads to better treatment outcomes in polytrauma patients compared to no use of validated handover protocols.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science to identify relevant studies from inception of each database to June 15, 2022. We intended to include systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials comparing the use of validated handover tools to no use of such tools in adult polytrauma patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Despite the absence of systematic reviews and RCTs meeting our criteria, we included 26 initially excluded studies to glean insights into handover tool usage. This broader inclusion facilitated the identification of two categories of tools: standardized tools and customized tools. Among studies employing customized tools, positive outcomes were reported in various aspects, including enhanced information quality, improved staff communication, and reduced risks and treatment errors. In contrast, studies utilizing well-established standardized tools documented improvements in communication, documentation, and overall satisfaction among medical professionals, signaling a reduction in communication errors and lost information.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Heterogeneity of the studies and no trials meeting our eligibility criteria present challenges for conducting a traditional systematic review. In the lack of evidence from RCTs and systematic reviews, our analysis of the available studies sheds light on the complexities of assessing handover tools' utility, especially in diverse clinical settings. It highlights the need for more standardized methodologies and further investigation into the effectiveness of custom-designed tools. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the role of handover tools in healthcare. While some studies suggest positive outcomes, further research is necessary to elucidate the design and implementation of these tools to enhance care and support healthcare professionals in their roles.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11836088/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-025-02776-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-025-02776-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:在医疗保健环境中,有效的患者移交对于确保患者安全和护理质量至关重要。移交工具作为改进这些转换的潜在辅助工具已经获得了突出的地位。这篇系统综述试图回答这样一个问题:与不使用有效的交接方案相比,使用有效的交接方案是否能在多发创伤患者中带来更好的治疗结果。方法:检索PubMed、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials和Web of Science,确定从每个数据库建立到2022年6月15日的相关研究。我们打算纳入系统评价和随机对照试验,比较在成人多发创伤患者中使用经过验证的交接工具与不使用此类工具的情况。结果:尽管缺乏符合我们标准的系统评价和随机对照试验,我们纳入了26项最初被排除的研究,以收集对移交工具使用情况的见解。这种更广泛的包含促进了两类工具的识别:标准化工具和定制工具。在使用定制工具的研究中,报告了各方面的积极结果,包括提高信息质量,改善员工沟通,减少风险和治疗错误。相比之下,利用完善的标准化工具进行的研究记录了医疗专业人员在沟通、文档和总体满意度方面的改进,表明沟通错误和信息丢失有所减少。结论:研究的异质性和没有试验符合我们的资格标准,对进行传统的系统评价提出了挑战。由于缺乏随机对照试验和系统评价的证据,我们对现有研究的分析揭示了评估移交工具效用的复杂性,特别是在不同的临床环境中。它强调需要更标准化的方法,并进一步调查定制设计工具的有效性。它强调了理解交接工具在医疗保健中的作用的重要性。虽然一些研究表明了积极的结果,但需要进一步的研究来阐明这些工具的设计和实施,以增强护理和支持医疗保健专业人员的作用。
Examining the impact of validated handover protocols on treatment outcomes in polytrauma patients: a systematic review.
Purpose: Effective patient handovers in healthcare settings are critical for ensuring patient safety and care quality. Handover tools have gained prominence as potential aids in improving these transitions. This systematic review seeks to answer the question if the use of validated handover protocols leads to better treatment outcomes in polytrauma patients compared to no use of validated handover protocols.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science to identify relevant studies from inception of each database to June 15, 2022. We intended to include systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials comparing the use of validated handover tools to no use of such tools in adult polytrauma patients.
Results: Despite the absence of systematic reviews and RCTs meeting our criteria, we included 26 initially excluded studies to glean insights into handover tool usage. This broader inclusion facilitated the identification of two categories of tools: standardized tools and customized tools. Among studies employing customized tools, positive outcomes were reported in various aspects, including enhanced information quality, improved staff communication, and reduced risks and treatment errors. In contrast, studies utilizing well-established standardized tools documented improvements in communication, documentation, and overall satisfaction among medical professionals, signaling a reduction in communication errors and lost information.
Conclusion: Heterogeneity of the studies and no trials meeting our eligibility criteria present challenges for conducting a traditional systematic review. In the lack of evidence from RCTs and systematic reviews, our analysis of the available studies sheds light on the complexities of assessing handover tools' utility, especially in diverse clinical settings. It highlights the need for more standardized methodologies and further investigation into the effectiveness of custom-designed tools. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the role of handover tools in healthcare. While some studies suggest positive outcomes, further research is necessary to elucidate the design and implementation of these tools to enhance care and support healthcare professionals in their roles.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery aims to open an interdisciplinary forum that allows for the scientific exchange between basic and clinical science related to pathophysiology, diagnostics and treatment of traumatized patients. The journal covers all aspects of clinical management, operative treatment and related research of traumatic injuries.
Clinical and experimental papers on issues relevant for the improvement of trauma care are published. Reviews, original articles, short communications and letters allow the appropriate presentation of major and minor topics.