BACKGROUND: Surgical handover is associated with a significant risk of care failures. Existing research displays methodological deficiencies and little consensus on the outcomes that should be used to evaluate interventions in this area. This paper reports a protocol to develop a core outcome set (COS) to support standardisation, comparability, and evidence synthesis in future studies of surgical handover between doctors.
METHODS: This study adheres to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative guidance for COS development, including the COS-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Reporting (COS-STAR) recommendations. It has been registered prospectively on the COMET database and will be led by an international steering group that includes surgical healthcare professionals, researchers, and patient and public partners. An initial list of reported outcomes was generated through a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical handover (PROSPERO: CRD42022363198). Findings of a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and public perspectives on handover will augment this list, followed by a real-time Delphi survey involving all stakeholder groups. Each Delphi participant will then be invited to take part in at least one online consensus meeting to finalise the COS.
BACKGROUND: This study was approved by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) Research Ethics Committee (202309015, 7th November 2023). Results will be presented at surgical scientific meetings and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. A plain English summary will be disseminated through national websites and social media. The authors aim to integrate the COS into the handover curriculum of the Irish national surgical training body and ensure it is shared internationally with other postgraduate surgical training programmes. Collaborators will be encouraged to share the findings with relevant national health service functions and national bodies.
CONCLUSIONS: This study will represent the first published COS for interventions to improve surgical handover, the first use of a real-time Delphi survey in a surgical context, and will support the generation of better-quality evidence to inform best practice.
BACKGROUND: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative 2675.  http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675 .

Routine patient signout within medical teams is an integral component of patient care. Standardized signout systems have shown lowered risks of harm and adverse outcomes to patients, however, many of these systems are difficult to utilize with surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if a standardized surgical signout model would improve resident satisfaction of the signout process and improve resident preparedness for cross-covered services.
A 16-question survey was administered to the surgical residents at a single general surgery residency program. A standardized signout using the mnemonic \"CUTS\" (Core problem, Updates, Things-to-do, Setbacks) was then implemented in the program. Residents retook the survey at 1, 3, and 6-month intervals to compare resident satisfaction on signout before and after the standardized signout implementation. The descriptive statistics of the survey were analyzed for trends over time, trends by resident training year, and for inferential statistics utilizing subscales.
The descriptive statistics showed that there was an overall trend towards greater resident satisfaction with signout over time with satisfaction increasing from 41.1% to 80% in the general resident cohort. While there were no statistically significant differences, subscale analysis demonstrated greatest trends for improved satisfaction with the CUTS signout model for the PGY1 and PGY5 classes. There was additionally an increased resident preparedness for overnight events and calls, with a 27% increase in perceived preparedness \"75% of the time\" and a 5.5% increase in perceived preparedness \"Always\". There was no difference in time spent on signout after the implementation of the model.
The surgical standardized signout model, CUTS, demonstrated that residents within a single program were more satisfied with signouts, had improved patient understanding and knowledge, and felt increased preparedness for overnight events on cross-covered patients. Further research is needed to determine the impact of the CUTS signout system on patient outcomes.

The handover period has been identified as a particularly vulnerable period for communication breakdown leading to patient safety events. Clear and concise handover is especially critical in high-acuity care settings such as trauma, emergency general surgery, and surgical critical care. There is no consensus for the most effective and efficient means of evaluating or performing handover in this population. We aimed to characterize the current handover practices and perceptions in trauma and acute care surgery.
A survey was sent to 2265 members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma via email regarding handoff practices at their institution. Respondents were queried regarding their practice setting, average census, level of trauma center, and patients (trauma, emergency general surgery, and/or intensive care). Data regarding handover practices were gathered including frequency of handover, attendees, duration, timing, and formality. Finally, perceptions of handover including provider satisfaction, desire for improvement, and effectiveness were collected.
Three hundred eighty surveys (17.1%) were completed. The majority (73.4%) of respondents practiced at level 1 trauma centers (58.9%) and were trauma/emergency general surgeons (86.5%). Thirty-five percent of respondents reported a formalized handover and 52% used a standardized tool for handover. Only 18% of respondents had ever received formal training, but most (51.6%) thought this training would be helpful. Eighty-one percent of all providers felt handover was essential for patient care, and 77% felt it prevented harm. Seventy-two percent thought their handover practice needed improvement, and this was more common as the average patient census increased. The most common suggestions for improvement were shorter and more concise handover (41.6%), different handover medium (24.5%), and adding verbal communication (13.9%).
Trauma and emergency general surgeons perceive handover as essential for patient care and the majority desire improvement of their current handover practices. Methods identified to improve the handover process include standardization, simplification, and verbal interaction, which allows for shared understanding. Formal education and best practice guidelines should be developed.

Introduction Miscommunication during patient handoff contributes to an estimated 80% of serious medical errors and, consequently, plays a key role in the estimated five million excess deaths annually from poor quality of care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Objective The objective of this study was to assess signout communication during patient handoffs between prehospital personnel and hospital staff. Methods This is a cross-sectional study, with a convenience sample of 931 interfacility transfers for pregnant women across four states from November 7 to December 13, 2016. A complete signout, as defined for this study, contains all necessary signout elements for patient care exchanged verbally or in written form between an emergency medical technician (EMT) and a physician or nurse. Results Enrollment of 786 cases from 931 interfacility transfers resulted in 1572 opportunities for signout. EMTs and a physician or nurse signed out in 1549 cases (98.5%). Signout contained all elements in 135 cases (8.6%). The mean percentage of signout elements included was 45.2% (95% CI, 43.9-46.6). Physician involvement was correlated with a higher mean percent (63.4% [95% CI, 62-64.8]) compared to nurse involvement (23.6% [95% CI, 22.5-24.8]). With respect to the frequency of signout communication, 63.1% of EMTs reported often or always giving signout, and 60.5% reported often or always giving signout; they reported feeling moderately to very comfortable with signout (73.7%) and 34.1% requested further training. Conclusions Physicians, nurses, and the EMTs conducted signout 99% of the time but often fell short of including all elements required for optimal patient care. Interventions aimed at improving the quality of patient care must include strengthening signout communication.

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.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia care providers frequently exchange care of patients among one another. This daily process of information exchange could be a potential source for adverse events.
OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to determine if the current handoff system is ineffective and if more standardized methods available for the exchange of patient information could improve the effectiveness of handoffs.
METHODS: We distributed a survey to all anesthesia staff, residents, and nurse anesthetists. The survey queried the following: handoff adequacy, location for best handoff, method for best handoff, and need for inclusion in the electronic medical record.
RESULTS: We received 80 completed initial surveys from anesthesia staff, residents, and nurse anesthetists. Of those surveyed, 20% found the existing handoff process inadequate. Most reported both giving and receiving a poor or incomplete handoff within the previous year (84% and 57%, respectively), and 25% related an adverse outcome to a poor handoff. An overwhelming majority, 89%, felt that standardization of this process could improve patient care; 68% reported that ideal handoffs would occur in the record, as well as in person; and 62% believed that handoffs should be incorporated into the electronic medical record.
CONCLUSIONS: These data will be used to improve the method of the patient care handoff and have assisted us in devising techniques that can be incorporated into daily practice, advancing the safety of handoffs and decreasing complications. A handoff screen has been included on the electronic anesthesia record, encouraging a more formalized procedure for handoffs, thereby promoting patient safety.