The present work aims to map the available scientific evidence on the benefits of using the ISBAR tool in the nursing care of acutely ill adult patients\' handover in an emergency department context. To this end, a scoping review was conducted, according to the guidelines proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), to answer the following research question: \"What are the benefits of using the ISBAR tool in the nursing care of acutely ill adult patients\' handover in an emergency department context?\" The bibliographic search was carried out during August and September 2023 in the following electronic databases: CINAHL Complete; MEDLINE Complete; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Cochrane Methodology Register. Only works published between 2013 and 2023 were deemed fit for inclusion. All the included studies (9) show that ISBAR methodology, as a standardized tool for transferring nursing care in the emergency service, allows for a safe, clear, and concise transition of nursing care. The benefits relate to patient and professional safety, continuity, and quality of care, as well as patient and professional comfort, with health gains.

Despite the extensive volume of research published on checklists in the intensive care unit (ICU), no review has been published on the broader role of checklists within the intensive care unit, their implementation and validation, and the recommended clinical context for their use. Accordingly, a scoping review was necessary to map the current literature and to guide future research on intensive care checklists. This review focuses on what checklists are currently used, how they are used, process of checklist development and implementation, and outcomes associated with checklist use.
A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was conducted, followed by a grey literature search. The abstracts of the identified studies were screened. Full texts of relevant articles were reviewed, and the references of included studies were subsequently screened for additional relevant articles. Details of the study characteristics, study design, checklist intervention, and outcomes were extracted.
Our search yielded 2046 studies, of which 167 were selected for further analysis. Checklists identified in these studies were categorised into the following types: rounding checklists; delirium screening checklists; transfer and handover checklists; central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention checklists; airway management checklists; and other. Of 72 significant clinical outcomes reported, 65 were positive, five were negative, and two were mixed. Of 122 significant process of care outcomes reported, 114 were positive and eight were negative.
Checklists are commonly used in the intensive care unit and appear in many clinical guidelines. Delirium screening checklists and rounding checklists are well implemented and validated in the literature. Clinical and process of care outcomes associated with checklist use are predominantly positive. Future research on checklists in the intensive care unit should focus on establishing clinical guidelines for checklist types and processes for ongoing modification and improvements using post-intervention data.

Since the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System in 1999, clinical handovers (or handoffs) and their relationship with the communication of patient safety have raised concerns from the public, regulatory bodies, and medical practitioners. Protocols, guidelines, forms, and mnemonic devices have been created to ensure safer clinical handovers. An initial literature search did not find a framework to describe the clinical processes and functions of each mnemonic device and its elements. The absence of a systematic framework could hinder the study across and the reusability of the established clinical handover mnemonic devices. This study aims to develop a universal framework to describe the clinical processes and functions essential for patient safety during handover. We queried PubMed.gov and obtained 98 articles related to clinical handovers. We examined the citing sources of the mnemonics mentioned in these articles. A total of 42 handover mnemonics with 238 elements were identified. Our review noted that there was no taxonomy to describe the clinical functions and process associated with the clinical handover mnemonic devices. We used grounded theory to address this gap and built a new taxonomy from the 42 mnemonics. A researcher read all mnemonics, developed a taxonomy for tagging clinical handover mnemonics, and categorized all mnemonic elements into correct processes and functions. After that, the second researcher, a medical practitioner, examined the taxonomy and made suggested corrections for the labelled functions of all mnemonic elements. Both researchers agreed on the taxonomy and the labelled processes and functions of different mnemonic elements. The taxonomy contains three processes and twenty functions in clinical handovers. Clinical processes like \'medical condition\', \'medical history\', \'medical evaluation\', \'care plan\', \'outstanding care/tasks/results\', and \'patient information\', as an administrative process, were widely adopted in clinical handover mnemonics. Moreover, mnemonic elements on communication manner and information validation had been identified in the list of clinical handover mnemonics. Although we recognize challenges because of both the vast number of clinical handover scenarios and the task of placing them under a few predefined groups, our findings suggest that such a taxonomy, as developed for this study, could assist medical practitioners to devise a clinical handover mnemonic to best fit their workplace.

UNASSIGNED: The clinical handover process has been directly associated with patient safety. Improving patient handover can improve patients\' safety and ultimate outcomes; therefore, this review was conducted to examine the literature available on interventions that make handovers more effective.
UNASSIGNED: MEDLINE (EBSCO) was searched for interventions that improve the efficacy of clinical handovers. Studies were excluded if they were irrelevant, not published in peer-reviewed journals, not published in English, or were based on animal studies. A total of 1087 publications were retrieved and sorted by relevance. The eligibility of the articles was determined by reading through the titles and abstracts then full texts, and reference searching. Six studies were selected for this literature review.
UNASSIGNED: A number of handover interventions were explored. One intervention was changing the handover location to patients\' bedside; Bradley et al. found that bedside handovers decreased handover time and patient adverse events. Another intervention was providing education on handovers which Sand-Jecklin et al. associated with reductions in adverse events. Moreover, Lee et al. used simulation-based education and found that it significantly improved nurses\' knowledge, performance competence, and self-efficacy. Another intervention was the transforming care at the bedside (TCAB) framework which incorporated multidimensional strategies and emphasized handover as part of patient centeredness; these strategies improved patient safety, yet the results cannot be attributed solely to handover modifications. Meanwhile, Hada et al. implemented a mixture of interventions and found that they improved patient safety and reduced adverse events.
UNASSIGNED: The interventions explored were bedside handovers, providing education and simulation-based education on handovers, emphasizing patient centeredness as part of TCAB strategies, and implementing a mixture of interventions. All interventions reduced adverse events, although some improvements were not significant. Due to the limited evidence available to support the efficacy of the interventions on improving clinical handovers, the results remain inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, there is no standardized handover pattern for patients undergoing general anesthesia when being transferred to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).
METHODS: A review of the literature.
METHODS: In this study, a review of the literature was conducted to analyze the PACU handover status, factors for poor handover, and commonly used handover patterns.
RESULTS: Important handover information was often omitted during the handover of PACU patients, and there were many factors influencing postoperative patient handover quality. This study analyzed and compared several commonly used handover patterns for patients. Among these, the Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation tool is relatively mature. However, there is currently no unified standardized patient handover pattern, and the validity and applicability of tools still need to be verified.
CONCLUSIONS: PACU is an important place for the recovery of surgical patients. Anesthesia providers need to provide PACU nurses with complete and comprehensive postoperative handover information. A standardized handover model for clinical nurses is needed to improve patient safety management and work efficiency.

The perioperative period extends from the moment of contemplation of surgery through to recovery at home. Patients on a surgical pathway will experience multiple transition points in their care. As we move to more collaborative working and caring for increasingly medically complex patients, we must establish robust processes to mitigate against the potential for patient harm posed by these multiple transition points. This article reviews best practice and guidance on handover of care throughout the perioperative period. We will look at models of transition of care beyond the hospital environment and how better use of community resources can smooth the transition of care out of hospital for ongoing rehabilitation.

Background: Transitions in care between emergency medical services (EMS) providers and emergency department (ED) nurses are critical to patient care and safety. However, interactions between EMS providers and ED nurses can be problematic with communication gaps and have not been extensively studied. The aim of this review was to examine (1) factors that influence transitions in care from EMS providers to ED nurses and (2) the effectiveness of interventional strategies to improve these transitions. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review that included searches of electronic databases (DARE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP), gray literature databases, organization websites, querying experts in emergency medicine, and the reference lists cited in included studies. All English-language studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-texts for inclusion and methodological quality, as well as extracted data from included studies. We used narrative and thematic synthesis to integrate and explore relationships within the data. Results: In total, 8,348 studies were screened and 130 selected for full text review. The final synthesis included 20 studies. Across 15 studies of moderate-to-high methodological quality, 6 factors influenced transitions: different professional lenses, operational constraints, professional relationships, information shared between the professions, components of the transition process, and patient presentation and involvement. Three interventions were identified in 6 methodologically weak studies: (1) transition guideline (DeMIST, Identification, Mechanism/Medical complaint, Injuries/Information related to the complaint, Signs, Treatment and Trends - Allergies, Medication, Background history, Other information [IMIST-AMBO]) with training, (2) mobile web-based technology (EMS smartphone and geographic information system location data), and (3) a new clinical role (ED ambulance off-load nurse dedicated to triaging and assessing EMS patients). There were mixed findings for the effectiveness of transition guidelines and the new clinical role. Mobile technology was seen positively by both EMS providers and ED nurses as helpful for better describing the pre-hospital context and for planning flow in the ED. Conclusion: While multimedia applications may potentially improve the handoff process, future intervention studies need to be rigorously designed. We recommend interdisciplinary training of EMS and ED staff in the use of flexible structured protocols, especially given review findings that interdisciplinary communication and relationships can be challenging.

The purpose is to provide a descriptive overview of relevant material exploring improvement of handovers from the operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU). An online search (MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Joanna Briggs), including gray literature and relevant reference lists, was completed. In all, 4574 unique citations were screened and 155 full-text reviews performed; 65 articles were included in the final analysis. The majority of articles discuss an ideal structure for handover (n = 63; 97%); 43 (66%) articles mentioned strategies for implementing such an approach. Only 21 (32%) explicitly described formal quality improvement (QI) methods. Few explored project sustainability and impact of a structured handover on patient safety outcomes (n = 15, 23%). Published literature suggests that there is a significant gap in evidence of measured patient outcomes from standardization of OR to ICU handover processes. Identifying formal QI strategies used to sustain standardized handover processes will allow accurate measurement of patient outcomes.

Effective and efficient transitions in care between emergency medical services (EMS) practitioners and emergency department (ED) nurses is vital as poor clinical transitions in care may place patients at increased risk for adverse events such as delay in treatment for time sensitive conditions (e.g., myocardial infarction) or worsening of status (e.g., sepsis). Such transitions in care are complex and prone to communication errors primarily caused by misunderstanding related to divergent professional perspectives leading to misunderstandings that are further susceptible to contextual factors and divergent professional lenses. In this systematic review, we aim to examine (1) factors that mitigate or improve transitions in care specifically from EMS practitioners to ED nurses, and (2) effectiveness of interventional strategies that lead to improvements in communication and fewer adverse events.
We will search electronic databases (DARE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP; Communication Abstracts); gray literature (gray literature databases, organization websites, querying experts in emergency medicine); and reference lists and conduct forward citation searches of included studies. All English-language primary studies will be eligible for inclusion if the study includes (1) EMS practitioners or ED nurses involved in transitions for arriving EMS patients; and (2) an intervention to improve transitions in care or description of factors that influence transitions in care (barriers/facilitators, perceptions, experiences, quality of information exchange). Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts for inclusion and methodological quality. We will use narrative and thematic synthesis to integrate and explore relationships within the data. Should the data permit, a meta-analysis will be conducted.
This systematic review will help identify factors that influence communication between EMS and ED nurses during transitions in care, and identify interventional strategies that lead to improved communication and decrease in adverse events. The findings can be used to develop an evidence-informed transitions in care tool that ensures efficient transfer of accurate patient information, continuity of care, enhances patient safety, and avoids duplication of services. This review will also identify gaps in the existing literature to inform future research efforts.
PROSPERO CRD42017068844.

The aim of this study is to explore the different handover models and processes available and their efficacy in improving handover communication within nursing practice. The handover of information is a key nursing responsibility that ensures patient outcomes through continuity of care. This process is widely recognised as an opening for error that may comprise patient safety. This paper is an integrative literature review that employed an inductive exploratory design. A computerised database search was employed including CINAHL, PubMed and Science Direct and a manual citation search with included papers limited to papers published 2005-2016, in English with full text freely available. This included a systematic search strategy, a critical appraisal of the papers utilising the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, an inductive data extraction and thematic analysis. Sixteen papers were included in this review. The results detailed that there are various handover models in use, yet there is no evidence that any one model displays superior efficacy. The iSoBAR model and its adaptations remain the only model employed across various specialties. More research is warranted to determine if any handover model displays superior efficacy or transferability.