Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(4):947–955

doi: 10.15452/CEJNM.2018.09.0028

REVIEW

EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND SHARING INFORMATION AT CLINICAL

HANDOVERS

Radka Pokojová, Sylva Bártlová

Institute of Nursing, Midwifery and Emergency Care, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia in
České Budějovice, Czech Republic

Received February 14, 2018; Accepted June 14, 2018. Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to present an overview of current knowledge of approaches to improving patient safety and to
ensuring continuity of care at clinical information handovers (handoffs). Design: Descriptive summarizing study. Methods:
PubMed, Science Direct, Embase and Google Scholar databases were studied, focusing on papers published in English over
the past five years. The overview included papers dealing with the effectiveness of patient information transfer between
members of staff, teams, and healthcare providers. After classification of materials, 28 articles were finally analyzed. Results:
The tools for information handovers were mostly (i.e., in 18 instances) based on the mnemonic SBAR list. To a lesser extent,
IPASS technology, the structure of body systems, and a checklist for trauma patients were used. The quality of transferred
information was most frequently assessed at ICUs. Conclusion: The implementation of structured approaches for both oral and
written information on patients is problematic, but the authors agree that it is necessary to take into account the particular
conditions and context of communication.
Keywords: care continuity, information handover/handoff, patient safety, standardization.

Introduction of patient care (Cohen, Hilligoss, 2010).

In increasingly sophisticated healthcare systems, use The term clinical handover (handoff) is used for
of modern technologies can increase the risks handover of patient information between two shifts,
associated with patient information handovers, as this in cases when the health status of a patient
influences the means of communication, degree deteriorates, and at the handover of a patient from or
of mutual understanding and ambiguity of reports. to a higher level of care (e.g. from an ambulance to
It may be difficult to ensure the transfer of basic an urgent care facility) and is closely associated with
information between healthcare providers due to the the handover of control and responsibility. Another
dispersal of clinical and professional responsibilities term – transfer – is used for the handover of patients
among various healthcare team members. and related responsibilities to a department with
a different specialization within a hospital. The term
The field of patient information handovers, patient clinical handover distinguishes the standard routine
transmissions, and continuity of care had become so of communication from the more complex reviews
important by 2008 that Joint Commission during ward rounds or other more concentrated
International (JCI) included handoffs in the National communications, such as consultations (Cohen,
Goal of ensuring patient safety (Friesen, White, Hilligoss, 2010). In 2008, JCI processed requirements
Byers, 2008; Halm, 2013). Patient clinical handover that should contribute to achieving goals in the area
or transfer includes both the transmission of and
of patient safety at hospitals:
assumption of responsibility for patient care, which
can be achieved by effective communication. It Interactive communication between the person
means the handover of specific information about the handing over patient information and the recipient
patient in real time, taking place between nurses or of the information, providing a chance to ask
nursing teams, to ensure the continuity and safety questions.
Topical information on nursing and medical care, and
Corresponding author: Radka Pokojová, Institute of Nursing, services provided to patients, their health status, and
Midwifery and Emergency Care, Faculty of Health and Social any recent or expected changes.
Sciences, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, J.
Boreckého 1167/27, České Budějovice, Czech Republic; email: Process of verifying accepted information, including
[email protected] its repetition or, if necessary, re-reading.

© 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 947

Pokojová R, Bártlová S. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(4):947–955

Opportunities for information recipients to find out a particularly negative impact on information
relevant historical data on patients that might include handover. Social relationships and differences in the
previous nursing and medical treatment, and services. status of clinicians can also have a negative impact
on handovers. While handovers are strongly
Interruptions in the course of handovers are kept to
influenced by context, results show that work settings
a minimum to reduce the possibility that information
do not support clinical staffʼs efforts to perform
will not be transferred or will be forgotten (Friesen,
handovers effectively. Though nursing handovers are
White, Byers, 2008).
performed in a more standardized way than medical
In the Czech Republic, the requirement of ensuring handovers, results do not support the idea that
patient safety during transfers and handovers is laid standardization improves the level of information
down in Regulation § 47, par. 3 (b), Act 372/2011 provided. Lack of time, poor planning with regard to
on health services and conditions for their provision. staffing, and interruptions in work processes have
(Zákon 372/2011) A detailed methodology and proven to be the main obstacles.
requirements are published in the Bulletin of the
An extensive questionnaire study performed by the
Ministry of Health, No. 16/2015 as Sectoral Safety
Faculty of Healthcare and Social Studies, South
Goal 7 – Safe Patient Handovers (Věstník 16/2015).
Bohemian University, České Budějovice found that
Within the National System of Reporting Adverse
43.9% of staff nurses admitted to problems with
Events in the Czech Republic, the adverse events
information exchange between hospital wards, 88.0%
associated with patient transfers and handovers can
did not believe that information was lost during shift
be included under the category of clinical
handovers, and 84.1% did not believe that
administration, and, according to specific events,
information was lost during transfers of patient to
under the categories of clinical intervention, records
other wards (Brabcová et al., 2015).
and sources/management of the organization
(Pokorná et al., 2017).
Aim
Implementation of the goal: Patient safety at
handovers requires organizations to introduce The aim of this study is to present a current overview
a standardized approach to communication at of lessons learned regarding approaches to increasing
handovers, providing opportunities to ask and answer patient safety and ensuring continuity of care during
questions (Friesen, White, Byers, 2008; Cohen, clinical transmission and transfers, and risk reduction
Hilligoss, 2010). However, according to Cohen, initiatives and their results.
Hilligoss (2010), it is not entirely clear what should We decided to study this sectoral safety goal in the
be included in the handover, how the concept belief that it is difficult to ensure the safe passage
of standardization should be interpreted, and how of patients through a healthcare facility due to
great the safety gains for a patient can be reliably a number of factors influencing handovers, and, at
expected to be from improvements in transmission the same time, that it is difficult to determine and
of information. Some concern has been expressed introduce effective strategies to reduce the number
over possible unintended consequences of of associated adverse events.
a standardized approach, and attention has been Hilligoss, Cohen (2013) draw attention to several
drawn to the fact that pre-prepared checklists do not factors influencing the context of handovers,
enable classification according to level of importance including, in particular, the relative complexity
and might be used instead of verbal updates in busy of cases, the character and quality of the relationship
periods. A developed template can change the between the parties participating in handovers, the
character of the whole process from a bilateral disciplinary perspectives involved, and the nature
interaction to a unilateral transaction. As a result, of the communication media.
patient safety can be impaired, and fewer questions
Answers to the following questions were sought:
asked and explained (Perry, Wears, Patterson, 2008).
For difficult situations, e.g. uncertain diagnoses or Are approaches to communication during patient
uncertain course of the disease, a system describing information handovers standardized?
the development in time, interconnecting specific How do the introduction of checklists and safety
events, and emphasizing their interrelations would protocols influence the quality of information handed
appear to be more effective (Horsky et al., 2015). over, and patient safety?
The complexity of these processes is also confirmed
by a study performed by Machaczek et al. (2013) Methods
in the Czech Republic. The results suggest that the Design
insufficient quality of medical handover records has
Descriptive summarizing study.

© 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 948

Pokojová R, Bártlová S. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(4):947–955

Sources with the main criterion, i.e., patient safety at patient

To accomplish our aims, secondary data analysis was handovers and transfers (handoffs). For gradual
performed. PubMed, Science Direct, Embase and exclusion of studies, PRISMA recommendations were
Google Scholar databases were studied. followed, as shown in Figure 1.
The level of the evidence was assessed in accordance
Search
with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), since both
The key words handover, handoff, checklist, patient, qualitative and quantitative research is dealt with
and change-of-shift were used. (Klugar, 2015). The evaluation included studies
Eligibility criteria of evidence levels two, three, and four (two – quasi-
Papers published in English over the past five years experimental designs and qualitative or mixed
were focused on. In the period mentioned, 1,432 synthesis methods, three – observational – analytic
articles have been published. designs and qualitative methods of a primary
research, four – observational – descriptive designs).
Data analysis and study selection Theses or similar studies and papers on different
Based on an extensive search, full texts of partial topics, e.g., topics focusing on staff safety, dealing
studies and discussion papers were included in the with emergent situations, teaching materials, etc.,
overview. The overview included papers dealing were excluded from our study. Similarly, papers that
with the effectiveness of patient information transfer were not available as full texts, and papers that did
between members of staff, teams, and healthcare not, after detailed analysis, contain sufficient relevant
providers. Following analysis of available information were excluded.
publications, we found that 28 articles corresponded
Identification

Records identified through database searching Additional records identified through other sources
(n = 1,432) (n = 0)

Records after duplicates removed

(n = 1419)
Screening

Records assessed as suitable based on the Records excluded

title and abstracts (n = 1,221)
(n = 198)
Eligibility

Full texts eligible for being included in Full texts justifiably excluded
the critical assessment (n = 170)
(n = 28)
Included

Studies included in the analysis

(n = 28)

Figure 1 Flowchart – recommendation by PRISMA

© 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 949

Pokojová R, Bártlová S. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(4):947–955

Results the introduction of standardized protocols including

mnemonic lists and checklists, which will become
The decisive feature distinguishing clinical handover important tools for patient safety (Cohen, Hilligoss,
from other patient communication is the transfer 2010; Starmer et al., 2012; Hilligoss et al., 2013).
of responsibility or control from the communicator to
the receiver. This also entails the need to briefly In a search of the literature, we found that in various
convey what it is necessary for the other party combinations and models, the effectiveness of SBAR
responsible for the next course of patient treatment to (Situation, Background, Assessment,
know, i.e., information on current health status, Recommendation), I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient
recent or expected changes, and the follow-up care summary, Action list, Situation awareness and
the patient requires (Cohen, Hilligoss, 2010). contingency planning, Synthesis by receiver), body
system models, and models for trauma patients had
Non-effective communication at the handover creates been tested. The assessments of proposed
the opportunity for the development of adverse standardized protocols were performed in various
events, since incomplete, incorrect or omitted data types of facilities, most frequently at ICUs (intensive
can produce ambiguity. Efforts to improve care units) and emergency departments. An overview
communication to ensure continuity of care and of the technologies is shown in Table 1 Part I and II.
the quality of handed-over information may lead to

Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the analysis (Part I)

Authors (year) Method of information handover Clinical area Degree of the Number of participants,
(content arrangement) evidence handover sessions
Abraham et al. list of body systems intensive care 2 16 staff nurses, 7 patients,
(2015) 15 handovers
Abraham et al. HAND IT (list of body systems) intensive care 3 41 handovers per each tool
(2013) and SOAP (subjective and
objective assessment of patient
condition)
Achrekar et al. SBAR unlimited 3c 20 a 19 staff nurses
(2016)
Arumugam et al. SBAR standard ward 2c 83 staff nurses
(2016)
Ashcraft, Owen SBAR in an electronic record emergency, 2d 56 persons in a control and
(2017) standard ward, intervention group
nursing homes
Banihashemi et al. SBAR intensive care 4b 45 staff nurses and 15
(2015) doctors
Birmingham, SBAR and list of systems unlimited 3 21 staff nurses
Buffum, Blegen
(2015)
Blower et al. electronic tool with recommended surgical ward 3c 118 a 114 handovers
(2014) RCSE (Royal College of
Surgeons) elements
Ebben et al. DeMIST – demography, emergency 3c 88 experts, 314 handovers
(2015) mechanism of injury or illness, in two phases
symptoms, treatment
Fabila et al. SBAR – inclusion in the PETS cynaecology- 3e 44 staff nurses
(2016) handover protocol obstetrics,
intensive care unit
Heilman et al. IPASS emergency 2 4 control groups of 4 – 8
(2016) persons each
Hesselink et al. IPASS emergency 3 26 dialogues and 321
(2014) individual dialogues with
patients and SOs

© 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 950

Pokojová R, Bártlová S. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(4):947–955

Table 2 Characteristics of studies included in the analysis (Part II)

Authors (year) Method of information handover Clinical area Degree of the Number of participants,
(content arrangement) evidence handover sessions
Hunter et al. SBAR surgery, operating 3 23 handovers
(2017) room
Inanloo, SBAR intensive care 2c 53 staff nurses
Mohammadi,
Haghani (2017)
Jain, Yadav SBAR intensive care 3c 120 persons
(2017)
Kumar et al. SBAR neuro-scientific 3 525 handovers
(2016) centre
LeBlanc et al. standardized protocol for surgery, 4b 247 respondents
(2014) traumatology handovers orthopaedics
Lee, Desai, Phan SBAR internal unit 3 30 participants, 134
(2017) handovers
Moore et al. ISBAR (identification, situation, community and 4b 40 and 48 phone records
(2017) background, assessment, hospital facilities, (two and four per person)
recommendation) air service
Nagammal et al. SBAR cancer centre 4b 117 staff nurses
(2017)
Lane-Fall et al. SBAR, SOAP (subjective and intensive care 3 30 persons
(2014) objective assessment of patient
condition) and format of standard
medical evidence
Randmaa et al. SBAR a control safety list in intensive care 3 6 groups with 23 persons
(2017) surgery WHO
Sujan et al. ATMIST (age, time, and ambulance 3 203 handovers
(2017) mechanism if injury, primary service,
treatment) emergency
Starmer et al. IPASS paediatrics 3d 432 handover documents,
(2014) 207 sound records
Malekzadeh et al Handover protocol according to intensive care 2d 56 staff nurses
(2013) Joint Commission International
standards
Ting et al. SBAR obstetrics 3c 29, 34 a 33 staff nurses
(2017) and standardized questionnaire for
SAQ (Safety Attitudes
Questionnaire)
Wollenhaup et al. SBAR and a modified tool for obstetrics 3c 28 staff nurses, 50
(2017) handovers handovers
Yu, Kang (2016) SBAR academic setting 4b 137 persons
Degree of evidence: 2c – quasi-experimental prospective controlled study, 2d – pre-test -post-test or retrospective controlled groups, 3c – cohort studies with
a control group, 3d – controlled case studies, 4b – profile studies, 2 – qualitative studies or a synthesis of various methods, 3 – qualitative studies (primary
research]; SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation); I-PASS (importance of the illness, sum of patient information, activity list, emergency
planning, summary by the recipient)

Discussion Improvements in the effectiveness of handovers, and

SBAR (or the modified ISBAR version) is, due to its healthcare staff`s responsibility for patient safety are
brevity, suitable for situations demanding fast documented by a study evaluating SBAR
decision-making. It is recommended when handing components during report handovers. By integrating
over information between individual shifts or during the tool, reliability improved from 54.5% to 83.73%
patient transfers (Starmer et al., 2014; Moore et al., (Arumugam et al., 2016). The study participants
2017). themselves mentioned that the use of mnemonic lists
improved awareness and reduced discrepancies and
Positive results of using SBAR in combination with errors (Arumugam et al., 2016; Fabila et al., 2016).
other methods are described by Achrekar et al.
(2016); Fabila et al. (2016); Kumar et al. (2016); A Swedish group of experts failed to demonstrate any
Ting et al. (2017). improvement in information handovers in
postoperative care (Randmaa et al., 2017).

© 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 951

Pokojová R, Bártlová S. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(4):947–955

The results of the study by Fabila et al. (2016) The structured HAND-IT (Handoff Intervention
suggest that the new PETS (pre-handover, equipment, Tool), whose content categories are organized
timeout, and sign out) protocol integrating the SBAR according to the importance and relevance for
form optimizes interdisciplinary communication and working procedures in intensive care (including
the passing on of important information between physical examinations, laboratory tests, medication,
operating team members and pediatric ICU members diagnostic and therapeutic regimen for each body
at handovers. The construction of the new protocol system) improves the ability of the handing-off staff
reduced ambiguity, and facilitated the process to react quickly to the requirements and questions
of distinguishing between missing, and inadequate of the recipients, thereby accelerating problem-
information. solving and decision-making processes (Abraham et
I-PASS technology is an option for the transfer al., 2013).
of information regarding complicated cases requiring The main recommendations for using the DeMIST
wider information and context. The mnemonic- model (demographics, injury or disease mechanism,
technology provides a framework for the process injury or disease, symptoms, treatment) stem from
of patient handovers (I – importance of the disease; the ability to structure information received from pre-
A – activity list; S – situation description; hospital care for handing over at urgent admissions.
S – summarizing by the recipient). Starmer et al. However, although the results of the study
(2014) performed an intervention study focusing on demonstrate a relatively high degree of suitability for
the degree of failure of nursing care processes, use and the correct sequence, its use did not improve
unintentional adverse events, and miscommunication. compliance with instructions for patient handover at
Implementation of the I-PASS Handoff Bundle urgent admissions, such as the transfer
includes mnemonic techniques for the standardization of responsibility between professionals,
of verbal and written handovers, training in an uninterrupted transfer process, or verification that
communication skills and team work, a didactic information was understood (Ebben et al., 2015).
interactive workshop, stimulation training, The participants in the Swedish study felt that use
a computer learning module, and materials and tools of electronic records was complicated and time-
for a campaign to change culture. The evaluation consuming, and resulted in the loss of overview
results were based on assessment of handover of patients’ conditions (Randmaa et al., 2017).
records. The work procedures were assessed by
During the analysis of the literature, we found that
observation. The number of medical errors was
a number of studies dealt with checklists and
reduced by 23%, and the rate of unintentional adverse
protocols. Calls for the standardization of structured
events that could cause harm to patients was reduced
information handovers are supported by a British
by 30%. The significant increase in the number
randomized study. The suitability of checklists for
of written documents and verbal communication at
handovers is explained by the fact that memory
handovers improved communication without any
signals maintain recall of clinical information,
negative impact on working methods.
especially in situations in which, due to even short-
The mnemonic characteristics of I-PASS may also be term psychological fatigue and cognitive burden on
acceptable in urgent care workplaces (Heilman et al., healthcare professionals, information is lost (Flindall
2016), after making certain modifications that take et al., 2016).
into account their dynamic nature and time
Evaluations of the effectiveness of handovers
constraints.
generally focus on three areas: structure, clinical
Mnemonic learning methods and structures for content, and interruptions in communication.
information transfer are also applied by tools based The structure of communication enables the
on the use of computer and web-operated systems. identification of conversational strategies
Options for their application are published, for (cooperation) during patient information transfer and
example, by Cohen, Hilligoss (2010); Blower et al. the development of a common base. The content
(2014); Ebben et al. (2015); Jain, Yadav (2017). of communication determines the clinical character
The study published by Blower et al. (2014) has of the dialogues.
demonstrated a statistically significantly more Interruptions in communication are used as
efficient transmission process using electronic forms, an alternative measure for communication gaps
thus improving patient safety, increasing the level during the handover (Abraham et al., 2015).
and continuity of care, reducing the length of stay
Participants in the Swedish study confirmed that
in hospital, and increasing the educational value
written information improved memory. As part of the
of handover.
introduced handover structure, they were expected

© 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 952

Pokojová R, Bártlová S. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(4):947–955

not only to receive information, but also to ask are quite widespread, and despite certain pitfalls
questions in a structured way during the handover arising, for example, from inappropriate use or
rather than after it had ended (Randmaa et al., 2017). neglect of certain parts by users, they appear to be
The introduction of standardized and structured effective, and there are efforts to apply them
protocols for shift information handovers leads to in electronic information handover.
effective and regular communication, supports As evidenced by the results the studies presented,
continuity of care (Malekzadeh et al., 2013), and the integration of standardized protocols may not,
prevents re-admissions to ICUs from standard units in itself, solve problems associated with information
(van Sluisveld et al., 2017), and to hospital from handovers. At protocol implementation, the general
primary care provision, etc. (Hesselink et al., 2014). context of the communication model and possible
Malekzadeh et al. (2013) suggest adapting protocols barriers resulting from the character of the setting or
to specific settings. The study, focusing on the excessive stress should be taken into consideration.
introduction of a shift handover protocol to an ICU, Information on the handover of patient information
improved the staff nurses` awareness of patient can be regarded as the starting point for further, more
needs, and the quality of nursing care. Lane-Fall et al. detailed studies that will focus more on the positive
(2014) draw attention to the fact that handover aspects of handover safety.
communication should reflect the various
participants` roles, including differences in structure Ethical aspects and conflict of interest
and content. Similarly, LeBlanc et al. (2014)
The authors declare that the presented manuscript has
recommend using standardized checklists that are
been neither published nor offered for publication to
specific to patient needs, to enable safe handovers.
any other publishers, and the development and
The results of the study demonstrate that to achieve
publication of this paper do not cause any conflict
patient safety during handovers, the most important
of interests, and the article has not been supported by
aspects include: comorbidity, diagnosis, readiness for
any firm.
theatre, stability, mechanism of injury, and
unresolved problems. They particularly recommend
the preoperative checklist for orthopedic surgery.
Author contribution
On the other hand, correlations between the Conception and design (RP, SB), data analysis and
procedures performed during discharge from ICU interpretation of data (RP), drafting the manuscript
(such as verbal and written handoffs, discharge (RP), critical revision of the manuscript (SB),
planning, monitoring post injection treatment, the final completion of the article (RP, SB).
education, etc.,) and the number of re-admissions to
the ICU within 48 hours were not confirmed by References
a Dutch study (van Sluisveld et al., 2017). Abraham J, Kannampallil TG, Almoosa KF, Patel B, Patel
Though more than 90 % of respondents who VL. Comparative evaluation of the content and structure of
participated in that questionnaire study regarded the communication using two handoff tools: implications for
patient safety. Journal of Critical Care. 2013;29(2):311.
checklist as useful, in the same group of respondents, Abraham J, Kannampallil TB, Brenner C, Lopez KD,
negative attitudes to checklists were identified as an Almoosa KF, Patel B, Patel VL. Characterizing the structure
obstacle to their use (van Sluisveld et al., 2017). and content of nurse handoffs: A Sequential conversational
We are aware that the presented overview analysis approach. Journal of Biomedical Informatics.
of available literature is limited primarily by its 2015;59:76–88.
Achrekar MS, Murthy V, Kanan S, Shetty R, Nair M, Khattry
focus, i.e., on areas relating to the transfer N. Introduction of situation, background, assessment,
of information between staff, teams or care providers, recommendation into nursing practice: a prospective study.
in connection with clinical handovers or patient Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2016;3(1):45–50.
transfers. Arumugam Y, Hassan H, Putra P, Irwan S. Managing patient
progress report through SBAR tool in non-critical areas.
Conclusion International Journal of Current Innovation Research.
2016;2(9):495–503.
Based on the study of available literature, we Ashcraft AS, Owen DC. Comparison of standardized and
attempted to answer the question of whether customized SBAR communication tools to prevent nursing
home resident transfer. Applied Nursing Research.
in practice, standardized approaches to
2017;38:64–69.
communication are used during patient handovers. Banihashemi S, Hatam N, Zand F, Kharazmi E, Nasimi S,
Although our conclusions are not entirely Askarian M. Assessment of three “WHO” Patient safety
unambiguous, it can be seen that mnemonic methods solutions: Where do we stand and What can we do?
International Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2015;6:120.

© 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 953

Pokojová R, Bártlová S. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(4):947–955

Birmingham P, Buffum MD, Blegen MA, Lyndon A. nurses working in intensive care units. Journal of Client-
Handoffs and Patient Safety: Grasping the Story and Painting centered Nursing Care. 2017;3(1):51–56.
a Full Picture. Western Journal of Nursing Research. Jain S, Yadav JA. Study on standardized system of shift
2014;37(11):1458–1478. handover communication compliance. International Journal
Blower EL, MacCarrick T, Forster H, Sutton PA, of Advanced Research and Innovative Ideas in Education.
Vimalachandran D. Implementation of a new tool to improve 2017;3(4):3370–3377.
the efficacy and safety of surgical handovers. International Klugar M. Kritické hodnocení vědeckých důkazů ve
Journal of Surgery. 2014;3(2015):189–192. zdravotnictví. In Marečková J, Gurková E, Jarošová D,
Brabcová I, Bártlová S, Gutkowska D, Ličeník R, Marková E, Klugarová J, Klugar M, Zeleníková R. Evidence-Based
Nagórska M, Papp K, Pokojová R, Prošková E, Tóthová V, Health Care – Zdravotnictví založené na vědeckých důkazech.
Zrubcová D. Management v ošetřovatelské praxi. 1. vyd. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci: 2015. s. 34–61.
Praha: Nakladatelství lidové noviny; 2015. (in Czech) (in Czech)
Cohen MD, Hilligoss PB. The published literature on Kumar P, Jithesh V, Vij A, Gupta SK. Need for a hands-on
handoffs in hospitals: deficiencies identified in an extensive approach to hand-offs: a study of nursing handovers in an
review. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2010;19(6):493– Indian Neurosciences Center. Asian Journal of Neurosurgery.
497. 2016;11(1):54–59.
Ebben RHA, van Grunsven PM, Moors ML, Aldenhoven P, Lane-Fall MB, Speck RM, Ibrahim SA, Shea JA, McCunn M,
de Vaan J, van Hout R, van Achterberg T, Vloet LCM. A Bosk CL. Are attendings different? Intensivists explain their
tailored e-learning program to improve handover in the chain handoff ideals, perceptions, and practices. Annals of the
of emergency care: a pre-test post-test study. Scandinavian American Thoracic Society. 2014;11(3):360–366.
Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. LeBlanc J, Donnon T, Hutchison C, Duffy P. Development of
2015;23:33. an orthopedic surgery trauma patient handover checklist.
Fabila TS, Hee HI, Sultana R, Assam PN, Kiew A, Chan YH. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2014;57(1):8–14.
Improving postoperative handover from anaesthetists to non- Lee SH, Desai SV, Phan PH. The impact of duty cycle
anaesthetists in a children’s intensive care unit: the receiver’s workflow on sign-out practices: a qualitative study of an
perception. Singapore Medical Journal. 2016;57(5):242–253. internal medicine residency program in Maryland, USA. BMJ
Flindall IR, Leff DR, Pucks N, Sugden C, Darzi A. The Open. 2017;7(5): e015762.
preservation of cued recall in the acute mentally fatigued Machaczek K, Whietfield M, Kilner K, Allmark P. Doctorsʼ
state: a randomised crossover study. World Journal of and nursesʼ perceptions of barriers to conducting handover in
Surgery. 2016;40(1):56–65. hospitals in the Czech Republic. American Journal of Nursing
Friesen MA, White SV, Byers JF. Handoffs: implications for Research. 2013;1(1):1–9.
nurses. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient safety and quality: an Malekzadeh J, Mazluom SR, Etezadi T, Tasseri A. A
evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville (MD): standardized shift handover protocol: improving nurses’ safe
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. p. practice in intensive care units. Journal of Caring Sciences.
285-322. 2013;2(3):177–185.
Halm MA. Nursing handoffs: Ensuring safe passage for Moore M, Roberts Ch, Newbury J, Crossley J. Am I getting
patients. American Association of Critical Care. an accurate picture? A tool to assess clinical handover in
2013;22(2):158–162. remote settings. BMC Medical Education. 2017;17:213.
Heilman JA, Flanigan M, Nelson A, Johnson T, Yarris LM. Nagammal S, Nashwan AJ, Nair SLK, Susmitha A. Nurses’
Adapting the I-PASS handoff program for emergency perceptions regarding using the SBAR tool for handoff
department Inter-shift handoffs. Western Journal of communication in a tertiary cancer center in Qatar. Journal of
Emergency Medicine. 2016;17(6):756–761. Nursing Education and Practice. 2017;7(4):103–110.
Hesselink G, Zegers M, Vernooij-Dassen M, Barach P, Perry SJ, Wears RL, Patterson ES. High-hanging fruit:
Kalkman C, Flink M, Öhlen G, Olsson M, Bergenbrant S, improving transitions in health care. In: Henriksen K, Battles
Orrego C, Suñol R, Toccafondi G, Venneri F, Dudzik- JB, Keyes MA, et al., editors. Advances in patient safety: new
Urbaniak E, Kutryba B, Schoonhoven L, Wollersheim H; directions and alternative approaches. Rockville (MD):
European HANDOVER Research Collaborative. Improving Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. p.
patient discharge and reducing hospital readmissions by using 1–9.
intervention Mapping. BMC Health Services Research. Pokorná A, Štrombachová V, Búřilová P, Dolanová D.
2014;14:389. Taxonomický – definiční slovník pro Systém hlášení
Hilligoss B, Cohen MB. The unappreciated challenges of nežádoucích událostí (SHNU). Praha: ÚZIS; 2017. [cited
between-unit handoffs: negotiating and coordinating across 2017 Dec 03]. Avaliable from:
boundaries. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2013;61(2):155– http://shnu.uzis.cz/res/file/FINAL_shnu-taxonomie-
160. novy_verze_1_2017.pdf (in Czech)
Horsky J, Suh EH, Sayan O, Patel V. Uncertainty, case Randmaa M, Engström M, Swenne CL, Martensson G. The
complexity and the content of verbal handoffs at the postoperative handover: a focus group interview study with
emergency department. AMIA Annual Symposium nurse anaesthetists, anaesthesiologists and PACU nurses.
Proceedings. 2015;2015:630–639. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8): e015038.
Hunter H, Tara C, Wesley C, Juliane B, Susan H, Paula S, Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, Allen AD, Landrigan
Sara E, Kevin L, Ji Yun K, Renaldo B. Assessing SBAR CP, Sectish TC, I-PASS study group. I-PASS, a mnemonic to
during intraoperative handoff. Perioperative Care and standardize verbal handoffs. Pediatrics. 2012;129(2):201–
Operating Room Management. 2017;6:7–10. 204.
Inanloo A, Mohammadi N, Haghani H. The effect of shift Starmer AJ, Spector NJ, Srivastava R, West DC, Rosenbluth
reporting training using the SBAR tool on the performance of G, Allen AD, Noble EL, Tse LL, Dalal AK, Keohane CA,

© 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 954

Pokojová R, Bártlová S. Cent Eur J Nurs Midw 2018;9(4):947–955

Lipsitz SR, Rothschild JM, Wien MF, Yoon CS, Zigmont van Sluisveld N, Oerlemans A, Westert G, van der Hoeven
KR, Wilson KM, O’Toole JK, Solan LG, Aylor M, Bismilla JG, Wollersheim H, Zegers M. Barriers and facilitators to
Z, Coffey M, Mahant S, Blankenburg RL, Destino LA, improve safety and efficiency of the ICU discharge process: a
Everhart JL, Patel SJ, Bale JF, Jr., Spackman JB, Stevenson mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research.
AT, Calaman S, Cole FS, Balmer DF, Hepps JH, Lopreiato 2017;17:251.
JO, Yu CE, Sectish TC, and Landrigan CP, for the I-PASS Věstník Ministerstva Zdravotnictví České republiky, 2015,
Study Group. Changes in medical errors after implementation část 16, s. 2–30. (in Czech)
of a handoff program. New England Journal of Medicine. Wollenhaup CA, Stevenson EL, Thompson J, Gordon HA,
2014;371:1803–1812. Nunn G. Implementation of a modified bedside handoff for a
Sujan MA, Chessum P, Rudd M, Fitton L, Inada-Kim M, postpartum unit. Journal of Nursing Administration.
Spurgeon P, Cooke MW. Emergency Care Handover (ECHO 2017;47(6):320–326.
study) across care boundaries: the need for joint decision Yu M, Kang K. SBAR report competency and
making and consideration of psychosocial history. Emergency communication clarity of handover in Korean nursing
Medicine Journal. 2015;32(2):112–118. students. International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-
Ting WH, Peng FS, Lin HH, Hsiao SM. The impact of Technology. 2017;7(6):189–200.
situation-background-assessment-recommendation (SBAR) Zákon č. 372/2011 Sb., o zdravotních službách a podmínkách
on safety attitudes in the obstetrics department. Taiwanese jejich poskytování. Sbírka zákonů 6.11.2011, roč. 2011,
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017;56(2):171–174. částka 131. (in Czech)

© 2018 Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 955