TY - JOUR
T1 - Patient perceptions of outcomes used to evaluate in-hospital handover interventions
T2 - a rapid review of qualitative data
AU - Ryan, Jessica M.
AU - Biesty, Linda
AU - Simiceva, Anastasija
AU - Devane, Declan
AU - Eppich, Walter
AU - Kavanagh, Dara O.
AU - Taneri, Petek Eylul
AU - McNamara, Deborah A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.
PY - 2025/8/8
Y1 - 2025/8/8
N2 - Objectives High quality handover is critical for patient safety and care continuity. Existing practice is based on a weak evidence base in which the patient voice is poorly captured. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes of importance to patients, families and carers regarding interventions to improve in-hospital handover between healthcare practitioners. Design A rapid systematic review of qualitative literature was carried out after prospective registration with PROSPERO and was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines. Data sources The Ovid MEDLINE database was searched. Eligibility criteria Qualitative or mixed-methods studies reporting patient, family or caregiver perspectives on in-hospital handovers were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and synthesis Synthesis was informed by the best-fit framework approach using a published taxonomy of handover-related outcomes and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Outcomes were reported according to two distinct types of handover: bedside (patient-involved) and provider-focused (patient-uninvolved). Results A total of 34 studies, including 1262 participants across a range of specialties and predominantly high-income settings, were analysed. 53 bedside and 31 provider-focused handover outcomes were identified according to four domains; adverse events, quality of patient care, quality of handover and patient/caregiver satisfaction. Bedside handover studies frequently reported outcomes relating to patient engagement and communication with healthcare staff. One study was carried out in a low income country; however, outcomes identified were broadly similar. Conclusions These findings expand the known outcomes for evaluating handover interventions and highlight the importance of prioritising the patient and public perspective in research. This work will contribute to developing a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover but can also be applied to handover practices for any other discipline within the hospital environment.
AB - Objectives High quality handover is critical for patient safety and care continuity. Existing practice is based on a weak evidence base in which the patient voice is poorly captured. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes of importance to patients, families and carers regarding interventions to improve in-hospital handover between healthcare practitioners. Design A rapid systematic review of qualitative literature was carried out after prospective registration with PROSPERO and was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines. Data sources The Ovid MEDLINE database was searched. Eligibility criteria Qualitative or mixed-methods studies reporting patient, family or caregiver perspectives on in-hospital handovers were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and synthesis Synthesis was informed by the best-fit framework approach using a published taxonomy of handover-related outcomes and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Outcomes were reported according to two distinct types of handover: bedside (patient-involved) and provider-focused (patient-uninvolved). Results A total of 34 studies, including 1262 participants across a range of specialties and predominantly high-income settings, were analysed. 53 bedside and 31 provider-focused handover outcomes were identified according to four domains; adverse events, quality of patient care, quality of handover and patient/caregiver satisfaction. Bedside handover studies frequently reported outcomes relating to patient engagement and communication with healthcare staff. One study was carried out in a low income country; however, outcomes identified were broadly similar. Conclusions These findings expand the known outcomes for evaluating handover interventions and highlight the importance of prioritising the patient and public perspective in research. This work will contribute to developing a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover but can also be applied to handover practices for any other discipline within the hospital environment.
KW - Methods
KW - Patient Participation
KW - Patient Reported Outcome Measures
KW - Patient Satisfaction
KW - QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
KW - STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105012908948
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-100883
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-100883
M3 - Article
C2 - 40780712
AN - SCOPUS:105012908948
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 15
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 8
M1 - e100883
ER -