Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background General practitioners (GP) and community pharmacists need information about hospital discharge patients’ medicines to continue their management in the community. This necessitates effective communication, collaboration, and reliable information-sharing. However, such handover is inconsistent, and whilst digital systems are in place to transfer information at transitions of care, these systems are passive and clinicians are not prompted about patients’ transitions. There are also gaps in communication between community pharmacists and GPs. These issues impact patient safety, leading to hospital readmissions and increased healthcare costs. Methods A three-phased, multi-method study design is planned to trial a multifaceted intervention to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions. Phase 1 is the co-design of the intervention with stakeholders and end-users; phase 2 is the development of the intervention; phase 3 is a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with 20 clusters (community pharmacies). Expected intervention components will be a hospital pharmacist navigator, primary care medication management review services, and a digital solution for information sharing. Phase 3 will recruit 10 patients per pharmacy cluster/month to achieve a sample size of 2200 patients powered to detect a 5% absolute reduction in unplanned readmissions from 10% in the control group to 5% in the intervention at 30 days. The randomisation and intervention will occur at the level of the patient’s nominated community pharmacy. Primary analysis will be a comparison of 30-day medication-related hospital readmissions between intervention and control clusters using a mixed effects Poisson regression model with a random effect for cluster (pharmacy) and a fixed effect for each step to account for secular trends. Trial registration This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12624000480583p , registered 19 April 2024.

Background Nursing internship students often lack the necessary clinical decision-making skills, confidence, and experience due to limited competence. To ensure safe and high-quality care, nursing faculty must train graduates with the self-efficacy required to make effective decisions in complex, dynamic, and high-stress healthcare environments. The handover process involves the information that plays a critical role in clinical decision-making and care planning. One of the frameworks used in handover process is ISBAR (Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation). The clinical supervision model serves as an educational and supportive approach aimed at enhancing self-efficacy and skills, including the use of handover. Objective This study aimed to investigate the impact of an ISBAR-based Clinical Supervision Model (CSM) during handover on clinical decision-making and self-efficacy in nursing internship students. Method This quasi-experimental, two-group (pre-test and post-test) study was conducted in selected hospitals affiliated with Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran, in 2024. Participants were selected through convenience sampling and then randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. Data were collected using the ISBAR communication checklist, the Self-Efficacy in Clinical Performance (SECP) questionnaire, the Clinical Decision-Making questionnaire, and the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS). The clinical supervision model and routine supervision were administered over six sessions for the intervention and control groups, respectively. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 16. Independent t-tests and chi-square tests were used to assess baseline differences between groups. Paired t-tests evaluated within-group changes in clinical self-efficacy and clinical decision-making scores. ANCOVA was applied to compare ISBAR communication scores across six time points and post-intervention clinical self-efficacy and decision-making scores, controlling for pre-intervention values. Repeated measures ANOVA assessed within-group changes in mean ISBAR scores over time, while MANOVA examined multiple, interrelated ISBAR subscale scores. A significance level of p  < 0.05 was set for all analyses. Results There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the intervention and control groups ( p  > 0.05). According to the within-group analysis, changes in the ISBAR communication scores over time were significant in both the intervention and control groups (p Time < 0.001), with a greater increase observed in the intervention group (p Intervention < 0.001). The intervention group demonstrated a significant improvement in clinical decision-making ( p  < 0.001) compared to the control group. Clinical self-efficacy showed significant improvement in both the control and intervention groups after the intervention ( P  < 0.05). However, between-group analysis showed that the increase was higher in the intervention group than in the control group ( P  < 0.001).) The mean score of the Manchester questionnaire in the intervention group in this study was 130.30, reflecting the high impact of implementing the clinical supervision model. Conclusion The findings revealed that the use of the clinical supervision model based on the ISBAR framework led to improvements in clinical self-efficacy and clinical decision-making, alongside the enhancement of handover skills in nursing internship students. Therefore, it is recommended that this model be utilized in the education of nursing students and newly graduated nurses to ensure safe and high-quality care.

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to develop a standardized hand-off program based on the SWITCH tool (surgical procedure, wet, instruments, tissue, counts, have you any questions?) and to examine its effectiveness in terms of self-reported perceptions of hand-off satisfaction, self-efficacy, surgical nursing performance, and communication competence among OR staff members. This randomized controlled trial used a nonsynchronized control group with a pretest and posttest design. The nurses in the experimental group received one educational session and used the standardized hand-off tool for four weeks. The control group performed hand offs using the usual method rather than a tool. After the intervention, self-reported hand-off satisfaction ( P = .001), self-efficacy ( P = .005), and surgical nursing performance ( P < .001) scores were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. A standardized hand-off tool can improve nurse perceptions of satisfaction, self-efficacy, and surgical nursing performance.

Handover of patient care is a potential safety risk for the patient due to loss of information which may result in adverse outcome. We hypothesized that a checklist for handover from the operating room (OR) to the intensive care unit (ICU) will lead to an increase of quality regarding information transfer compared with a nonstandardized handover procedure. The study was conducted as a prospective, randomized trial in a university hospital. The quality of handovers with checklist was compared with handovers without checklist. Handovers were recorded by digital voice recorder and analyzed using an individual rating sheet for each patient. This enabled to discriminate between items that “must be handed over” (red items) and items that “should be handed over” (yellow items). A total of 121 patient handovers from OR to ICU were included. Significantly more red items were handed over in the study group compared with the control group (study group: median 87.1%, 25-27 percentile 77.1%-90.0%; control group: median 75.0%, 25-75 percentile 66.7%-88.6%; P < .01). This study gives first evidence that the use of a standardized checklist for patient handover from OR to ICU increases the quantity and quality of transmitted medical information.

Background Handover of patient information represents a critical time period during a patient's hospitalisation. While recent guidelines promote standardised communication during these patient care transitions, significant variability in structure and practice persists among hospitals and providers. Methods The authors surveyed internal medicine residents regarding handover practices before and after introduction of a structured, web-based handover application. The handover application standardised patient data in a format suitable for both patient handovers and day-to-day patient management. Results A total of 80 residents were surveyed prior to the intervention (80% response rate) and 161 residents during the intervention (average 68% response rate for all surveys distributed). At baseline, residents perceived deficits in handover practices related to the variability of information transferred and correlated that variability to near-miss events. After introduction of the handover application, 100% of handovers contained an updated problem list, active medications, and code status (compared to <55% at baseline, p<0.01); residents perceived approximately half as many near-miss events on call (31.5% vs 55%; p=0.0341) and were twice as likely to respond that they were confident or very confident in their patient handovers compared to traditional practices (93% vs 49%; p=0.01). Conclusion Standardisation of information transmitted during patient handovers through the use of a structured, web-based application led to consistent transfer of vital patient information and was associated with improved resident confidence and fewer perceived near-miss events on call.

OBJECTIVEThe objective of this study is to assess benefits of the acuity-adaptable (AA) care model in rural hospitals. BACKGROUNDThe AA model aims to provide care in the same space from admission to discharge regardless of acuity. Evidence is lacking to support claims that AA care will improve patient safety, increase nurse productivity, and improve patient/staff satisfaction in rural hospitals. METHODSPatients admitted to a rural intensive care unit (ICU) were allocated to an AA group or an ICU group. Patients in the AA group remained in the ICU room through discharge. Patients in the ICU group transferred out of ICU when acuity permitted. Patient anxiety, depression, and perception of emotional care were measured. Staff responses were assessed qualitatively. RESULTSAcuity-adaptable patients reported significantly more anxiety and less perceived emotional care than ICU patients. Intensive care unit nurses resisted caring for less acute patients. CONCLUSIONDisadvantages may outweigh benefits of AA care delivery in the rural ICU.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to implement and evaluate a newly developed standardised handover curriculum for medical students. We sought to assess its effect on students’ awareness, confidence and knowledge regarding handover.DesignA controlled educational research study.SettingThe pilot handover training curriculum was integrated into a curriculum led by the Departments of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care (AI) at the University Hospital. It consisted of three modules integrated into a 4-week course of AI. Multiple types of handover settings namely end-of-shift, operating room/postanaesthesia recovery unit, intensive care unit, telephone and discharge were addressed.ParticipantsA total of n=147 fourth-year medical students participated in this study, who received either the current standard existing curriculum (no teaching of handover, n=78) or the curriculum that incorporated the pilot handover training (n=69).Outcome measuresPaper-based questionnaires regarding attitude, confidence and knowledge towards handover and patient safety were used for pre-assessment and post-assessment.ResultsStudents showed a significant increase in knowledge (p<0.01) and self-confidence for the use of standardised handover tools (p<0.01) as well as accurate handover performance (p<0.01) among the pilot group.ConclusionWe implemented and evaluated a pilot curriculum for undergraduate handover training. Students displayed a significant increase in knowledge and self-confidence for the use of standardised handover tools and accuracy in handover performance. Further studies should evaluate whether the observed effect is sustained across time and is associated with patient benefit.

Continuity is critical for safe patient care and its absence is associated with adverse outcomes. Continuity requires handoffs between physicians, but most published studies of educational interventions to improve handoffs have focused primarily on residents, despite interns expected to being proficient. The AAMC core entrustable activities for graduating medical students includes handoffs as a milestone, but no controlled studies with students have assessed the impact of training in handoff skills. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of an educational intervention to improve third-year medical student handoff skills, the durability of learned skills into the fourth year, and the transfer of skills from the simulated setting to the clinical environment. Trained evaluators used standardized patient cases and an observation tool to assess verbal handoff skills immediately post intervention and during the student’s fourth-year acting internship. Students were also observed doing real time sign-outs during their acting internship. Evaluators assessed untrained control students using a standardized case and performing a real-time sign-out. Intervention students mean score demonstrated improvement in handoff skills immediately after the workshop (2.6–3.8; p  < 0.0001) that persisted into their fourth year acting internship when compared to baseline performance (3.9–3.5; p  = 0.06) and to untrained control students (3.5 vs. 2.5; p  < 0.001, d  = 1.2). Intervention students evaluated in the clinical setting also scored higher than control students when assessed doing real-time handoffs (3.8 vs. 3.3; p  = 0.032, d  = 0.71). These findings should be useful to others considering introducing handoff teaching in the undergraduate medical curriculum in preparation for post-graduate medical training. Trial Registration Number NCT02217241.

Since its publication in 2008, SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) has contributed to the completeness and transparency of reporting of quality improvement work, providing guidance to authors and reviewers of reports on healthcare improvement work. In the interim, enormous growth has occurred in understanding factors that influence the success, and failure, of healthcare improvement efforts. Progress has been particularly strong in three areas: the understanding of the theoretical basis for improvement work; the impact of contextual factors on outcomes; and the development of methodologies for studying improvement work. Consequently, there is now a need to revise the original publication guidelines. To reflect the breadth of knowledge and experience in the field, we solicited input from a wide variety of authors, editors and improvement professionals during the guideline revision process. This Explanation and Elaboration document (E&E) is a companion to the revised SQUIRE guidelines, SQUIRE 2.0. The product of collaboration by an international and interprofessional group of authors, this document provides examples from the published literature, and an explanation of how each reflects the intent of a specific item in SQUIRE. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist authors in writing clearly, precisely and completely about systematic efforts to improve the quality, safety and value of healthcare services. Authors can explore the SQUIRE statement, this E&E and related documents in detail at http://www.squire-statement.org.

The authors developed an intervention to improve the quality of the handoff of hospitalized patients; it was associated with reductions in medical errors and in preventable adverse events. Handoff duration, time with patients, and time spent on computers did not change. Preventable adverse events — injuries due to medical errors — are a major cause of death among Americans. Although some progress has been made in reducing certain types of adverse events, 1 – 3 overall rates of errors remain extremely high. 4 Failures of communication, including miscommunication during handoffs of patient care from one resident to another, are a leading cause of errors; such miscommunications contribute to two of every three “sentinel events,” the most serious events reported to the Joint Commission. 5 The omission of critical information and the transfer of erroneous information during handoffs are common. 6 As resident work hours have been . . .