Poor reporting limited consideration of EDI in the Australian guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Actively addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in healthcare guidelines provides an important avenue ensure that individuals and communities receive high-quality healthcare that meets their needs. In 2020, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce was charged with developing Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 (the Guidelines). It was intended that the Guidelines would consider the biological and social determinants of health (BSDH) underpinning evidence-based recommendations for of the treatment of COVID-19. The objective of this paper is to describe the evidence available on BSDH that is reported in published trials of disease-modifying therapies for COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Published papers of randomized controlled trials that informed clinical recommendations (for and against drug therapies for COVID-19) in the Guidelines were reviewed retrospectively using a case series design. We extracted reported characteristics relating to BSDH. These included age, sex, gender, geographical location, ethnicity (including indigenous), disability, migrant status, income, education, employment, and social support. A descriptive analysis was conducted to illustrate the characteristics available for use in guideline development. RESULTS: A total of 115 peer-reviewed papers describing randomized control trials of drug interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were included. BSDH characteristics were poorly reported. Geographical location of the study was the only category reported in all papers. While age and sex were reported in most papers (n = 109 and 108, respectively), ethnicity was reported in only one-third of papers (n = 40), social support was reported in only three papers, and employment in one paper. No paper reported on gender, disability, migrant status, income, or education. CONCLUSION: Consideration of EDI issues is a crucial component of guideline development. Although these issues were widely recognized to impact on health outcomes from COVID-19, reporting of these characteristics was poor in COVID trials. Urgent action is needed to improve reporting of EDI characteristics if they are to be meaningfully considered in guideline processes, and health inequity is overcome.

Mental health outcomes of family carers after admission to aged care: A cross-sectional survey study.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the predictors of poor mental health outcomes among family carers of residents after transitioning into residential aged care. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, five groups of variables were evaluated as predictors: caregiver demographics; caregiving load; resident-related variables; loneliness and visiting frequency; and the impact of the COVID-19 context. A total of 309 primary family contacts of all residents of two residential aged care organisations in the state of Victoria (Australia) participated in the study (response rate 19%). The K-10 and the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers were used to measure the primary outcomes. We compared psychological distress and burden outcomes between carers whose relative was admitted within the last 12 months, or longer than 12 months ago. RESULTS: Time since admission (<12 months or >12 months) did not affect the level of psychological distress (t (238) = -.08, p = .94) or subjective burden (t (245) = -.89, p = .38). Being a woman, a spouse, speaking a language other than English at home, being less satisfied with the support offered by the facility, not feeling supported in the decision to admit their relative, being lonely and providing higher levels of care preadmission were predictors of poor mental health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Older women with low-English proficiency who were primary carers and are socially isolated, are more likely to experience poor mental health outcomes and need additional support. These findings may inform the development of screening tools and tailored interventions to support this population during and after the transition process.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Referred to a General Practitioner by Victorian Paramedics.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients who are attended by paramedics do not require conveyance to an emergency department (ED). Our study focuses on comparing the characteristics and outcomes of patients who were advised to follow up with a general practitioner (GP) by an attending paramedic with those of patients who were discharged at scene or transported to hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective data linkage cohort study of ambulance, ED, hospital admission, and death records for all adults attended by paramedics in Victoria, Australia between the 1st of January 2015 and 30th of June 2019. Patients were excluded if they presented in cardiac arrest, resided in a residential aged care facility, or were receiving palliative care services. Outcomes of interest included reattendance by ambulance, ED presentation; and, a high acuity outcome which we defined as a patient who (1) presented to ED and received an Australasian Triage Scale of category 1 (Resuscitation) or 2 (Emergency) AND was admitted to a ward OR (2) was admitted to an Intensive Care Unit, Coronary Care Unit or Catheter laboratory (regardless of triage category) OR (3) died. Outcomes of interest were considered within 48-h of initial EMS attendance. RESULTS: A total of 1,777,950 cases were included in the study of which 3.1% were referred to a GP, 9.0% were discharged at scene without a follow-up recommendation, and 87.9% were transported to hospital. Patients referred to a GP were more likely than those discharged at scene to subsequently present to an ED within 48 h of their attendance (5.3% vs 3.8%). However, GP referral was not associated with any change to high acuity outcome (0.3% vs 0.2%) or ambulance reattendance (6.0% vs 6.0%) compared to discharge at scene. The only factors that were associated with ambulance reattendance, ED presentation, and a high acuity outcome were male gender and elevated temperature. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing low and medium-acuity casework in this EMS system, paramedic referral to a GP is not common practice. Referring a patient to a GP did not reduce the likelihood of patients experiencing a high acuity outcome or recalling an ambulance within 48 h, suggesting opportunity exists to refine paramedic to GP referral practices.

Assessing the fidelity of a behavioural intervention involving academic detailing in general practice: a sub-study of the 'Implementing work-related Mental health guidelines in general PRacticE' (IMPRovE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the fidelity of intervention components enables researchers to make informed judgements about the influence of those components on the observed outcome. The 'Implementing work-related Mental health guidelines in general PRacticE' (IMPRovE) trial is a hybrid III trial aiming to increase adherence to the 'Clinical Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of work-related mental health conditions in general practice'. IMPRovE is a multifaceted intervention, with one of the central components being academic detailing (AD). This study describes the fidelity to the protocol for the AD component of the IMPRovE intervention. METHOD: All AD sessions for the trial were audio-recorded and a sample of 22% were randomly selected for fidelity assessment. Fidelity was assessed using a tailored proforma based on the Modified Conceptual Framework for fidelity assessment, measuring duration, coverage, frequency and content. A descriptive analysis was used to quantify fidelity to the protocol and a content analysis was used to elucidate qualitative aspects of fidelity. RESULTS: A total of eight AD sessions were included in the fidelity assessment. The average fidelity score was 89.2%, ranging from 80 to 100% across the eight sessions. The sessions were on average 47 min long and addressed all of the ten chapters in the guideline. Of the guideline chapters, 9 were frequently discussed. The least frequently discussed chapter related to management of comorbid conditions. Most general practitioner (GP) participants used the AD sessions to discuss challenges with managing secondary mental conditions. In line with the protocol, opinion leaders who delivered the AD sessions largely offered evidence-based strategies aligning with the clinical guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The IMPRovE AD intervention component was delivered to high fidelity. The sessions adhered to the intended duration, coverage, frequency, and content allowing participating GPs to comprehend the implementation of the guideline in their own practice. This study also demonstrates that the Modified Conceptual Fidelity Framework with a mixed methods approach can support the assessment of implementation fidelity of a behavioural intervention in general practice. The findings enhance the trustworthiness of reported outcomes from IMPRovE and show that assessing fidelity is amenable for AD and should be incorporated in other studies using AD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 12620001163998, November 2020.

What could health technology assessment learn from living clinical practice guidelines?

A "living" approach to clinical practice guidelines is when the identification, appraisal and synthesis of evidence is maintained and repeated at an agreed frequency, with a clear process for when and how new evidence is to be incorporated. The value of a living approach to guidelines was emphasised during the COVID-19 pandemic when health professionals and policymakers needed to make decisions regarding patient care in the context of a nascent but rapidly evolving evidence base. In this perspective, we draw on our recent experience developing Australian and international living guidelines and reflect on the feasibility of applying living guideline methods and processes to a lifecycle approach to health technology assessment (HTA). We believe the opportunities and challenges of adopting a living approach in HTA fall into five key themes: identification, appraisal and synthesis of evidence; optimising the frequency of updates; embedding ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement; linking the emergence of new evidence to reimbursement; and system capacity to support a living approach. We acknowledge that the suitability of specific living approaches to HTA will be heavily influenced by the type of health technology, its intended use in the health system, local reimbursement pathways, and other policy settings. But we believe that the methods and processes applied successfully to guideline development to manage evidentiary uncertainty could be applied in the context of HTA and reimbursement decision-making to help manage similar sources of uncertainty.

Improving rural and regional access to long-acting reversible contraception and medical abortion through nurse-led models of care, task-sharing and telehealth (ORIENT): a protocol for a stepped-wedge pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial in Australian general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Women living in rural and regional Australia often experience difficulties in accessing long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and medical abortion services. Nurse-led models of care can improve access to these services but have not been evaluated in Australian general practice. The primary aim of the ORIENT trial (ImprOving Rural and regIonal accEss to long acting reversible contraceptioN and medical abortion through nurse-led models of care, Tasksharing and telehealth) is to assess the effectiveness of a nurse-led model of care in general practice at increasing uptake of LARC and improving access to medical abortion in rural and regional areas. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ORIENT is a stepped-wedge pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. We will enrol 32 general practices (clusters) in rural or regional Australia, that have at least two general practitioners, one practice nurse and one practice manager. The nurse-led model of care (the intervention) will be codesigned with key women's health stakeholders. Clusters will be randomised to implement the model sequentially, with the comparator being usual care. Clusters will receive implementation support through clinical upskilling, educational outreach and engagement in an online community of practice. The primary outcome is the change in the rate of LARC prescribing comparing control and intervention phases; secondary outcomes include change in the rate of medical abortion prescribing and provision of related telehealth services. A within-trial economic analysis will determine the relative costs and benefits of the model on the prescribing rates of LARC and medical abortion compared with usual care. A realist evaluation will provide contextual information regarding model implementation informing considerations for scale-up. Supporting nurses to work to their full scope of practice has the potential to increase LARC and medical abortion access in rural and regional Australia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 29476). Findings will be disseminated via multiple avenues including a knowledge exchange workshop, policy briefs, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000086763).

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members. RESULTS: We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored. CONCLUSION: The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

Post-COVID-19 syndrome/condition or long COVID: Persistent illness after acute SARS CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10 million Australians have had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The waves of infection in the population have been succeeded by smaller waves of people affected by persistent illness following acute infection. Post-COVID-19 symptoms may extend for months following infection. There is a range of symptoms causing mild to debilitating impairment. OBJECTIVE: This article summarises what is currently understood about the pathophysiology, risk factors, symptoms and how to approach both the assessment and care of people with post-COVID-19 sequelae. DISCUSSION: Currently recommended is a person-centred approach from a multidisciplinary team, with general practitioners centrally coordinating care. As the understanding of post-acute COVID-19 is evolving, regularly updated or 'living guidelines' will be crucial for those affected to be provided with best care within the health system.

Building a practice-based research network for healthcare integration: a protocol paper for a mixed-method project.

INTRODUCTION: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are sustained collaborations between healthcare professionals, researchers and members of the community that develop, conduct and report on research relevant to local needs. While PBRNs have traditionally been focused towards primary care practices and their patients, there has been increasing interest in how they may help facilitate healthcare integration. Yet, little is known on the ways in which PBRNs can best integrate with the broader healthcare system, in particular Advanced Health Research and Translation Centres. The overall project aim is to build a sustainable collaboration between a PBRN and an Advanced Health Research and Translation Centre to generate a research platform suitable for planning, undertaking and translating research to improve care across the healthcare continuum. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a developmental evaluation design. Our iterative approach will be informed by a programme logic model and consists of: preparation work (pre-implementation assessment, literature review, community and stakeholder engagement), adaptation and building for a sustainable collaboration (strategy for recruitment and sustainment of members) and planning for network action (designing and implementing priority initiatives, monitoring and follow-up). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project was approved by the Monash Health ethics committee (ERM Reference Number: 76281; Monash Health Ref: RES-21-0000-392L) and the Monash University Human Research ethics committee (Reference Number: 29786). Dissemination will take place via various channels, including relevant national and international committees and conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media. Continuous dissemination to and communication with all participants in this project as well as other relevant stakeholders will help strengthen and sustain the network.

Factors contributing to the mental health outcomes of carers during the transition of their family member to residential aged care: a systematic search and narrative review.

OBJECTIVES: The transition of an older family member into a residential aged care facility (RACF) is often challenging for both the person being admitted and their family carer. This review aimed to identify the protective and contributing factors to adverse mental health outcomes among family carers following the decision to move a family member to a RACF. METHOD: A search of CINAHL, PubMed and PsycINFO was conducted for empirical papers published in English between 2004 and 2019, exploring the mental health or quality of life (QoL) of family carers of those recently admitted, or considering admission, to a RACF. Articles were reviewed by two authors for inclusion. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Pre-existing depressive symptoms and poor subjective health were related to adverse mental health outcomes following admission. Information from the facility, support to change roles, and factors related to carer's health and demographics, were associated with changes in the mental health outcomes of carers during the transition of their relative to a RACF. Key protective factors of carer's mental health outcomes following the transition of their relative to a RACF are flow and transparency of information between carer and the facility staff, and staff efforts to involve carers in providing emotional support to their relative, in monitoring care, and advocating for their quality of life. CONCLUSION: There is evidence to suggest factors such lack of flow and transparency of information between carer and the facility staff may predispose carers to poor mental health and QoL following the transition of a relative to a RACF. Key protective factors of carer's mental health following admission are staff efforts to involve carers in providing emotional support to their relative, in monitoring care, and advocating for their quality of life. This review also indicates that the combination of factors that puts family carers more at risk of poor mental health and lower quality of life throughout the transition period. Policy and practice should follow recommendations that consider a combination of the above factors when addressing the needs of family carers before and after admission of an older person to RACF.

Care of older people and people requiring palliative care with COVID-19: guidance from the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: Older people living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience higher rates of critical illness. There are also people who become critically ill with COVID-19 for whom a decision is made to take a palliative approach to their care. The need for clinical guidance in these two populations resulted in the formation of the Care of Older People and Palliative Care Panel of the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce in June 2020. This specialist panel consists of nursing, medical, pharmacy and allied health experts in geriatrics and palliative care from across Australia. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel was tasked with developing two clinical flow charts for the management of people with COVID-19 who are i) older and living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment, and ii) receiving palliative care for COVID-19 or other underlying illnesses. The flow charts focus on goals of care, communication, medication management, escalation of care, active disease-directed care, and managing symptoms such as delirium, anxiety, agitation, breathlessness or cough. The Taskforce also developed living guideline recommendations for the care of adults with COVID-19, including a commentary to discuss special considerations when caring for older people and those requiring palliative care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The practice points in the flow charts emphasise quality clinical care, with a focus on addressing the most important challenges when caring for older individuals and people with COVID-19 requiring palliative care. The adult recommendations contain additional considerations for the care of older people and those requiring palliative care.

Implementing work-related Mental health guidelines in general PRacticE (IMPRovE): a protocol for a hybrid III parallel cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Work-related Mental Health Conditions in General Practice (the Guideline) was published in 2019. The objective of this trial is to implement the Guideline in general practice. TRIAL DESIGN: Implementing work-related Mental health conditions in general PRacticE is a hybrid III, parallel cluster randomised controlled trial undertaken in Australia. Its primary aim is to assess the effectiveness of a complex intervention on the implementation of the Guideline in general practice. Secondary aims are to assess patient health and work outcomes, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the trial, and to develop a plan for sustainability. METHODS: A total of 86 GP clusters will be randomly allocated either to the intervention arm, where they will receive a complex intervention comprising academic detailing, enrolment in a community of practice and resources, or to the control arm, where they will not receive the intervention. GP guideline concordance will be assessed at baseline and 9 months using virtual simulated patient scenarios. Patients who meet the eligibility criteria (>18years, employed, and receiving care from a participating GP for a suspected or confirmed work-related mental health condition) will be invited to complete surveys about their health and work participation and provide access to their health service use data. Data on health service use and work participation compensation claim data will be combined with measures of guideline concordance and patient outcomes to inform an economic evaluation. A realist evaluation will be conducted to inform the development of a plan for sustainability. RESULTS: We anticipate that GPs who receive the intervention will have higher guideline concordance than GPs in the control group. We also anticipate that higher concordance will translate to better health and return-to-work outcomes for patients, as well as cost-savings to society. CONCLUSIONS: The trial builds on a body of work defining the role of GPs in compensable injury, exploring their concerns, and developing evidence-based guidelines to address them. Implementation of these guidelines has the potential to deliver improvements in GP care, patient health, and return-to-work outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620001163998 , November 2020.

The Smarter Sleep educational interventions: an initiative to reduce hypnotic prescribing in in-patient psychiatric care.

AIMS AND METHOD: In-patients on mental health wards are commonly prescribed hypnotics for the long-term management of disturbed sleep. Specific sleep disorders remain underdiagnosed and effective behavioural interventions are underused. We developed a suite of three educational interventions (a video, poster and handbook) about sleep, sleep disorders, the safe prescribing of hypnotics and use of psychological strategies (sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioural therapy for insomnia, CBTi) using co-design and multiprofessional stakeholder involvement. This controlled before-and-after study evaluated the effectiveness of these interventions across seven in-patient psychiatric wards, examining their impact on hypnotic prescribing rates and staff confidence scores (data collected by retrospective drug chart analysis and survey respectively). RESULTS: A marked reduction was seen in the percentage of patients prescribed hypnotics on in-patient prescription charts (-24%), with a 41% reduction in the number of hypnotics administered per patient (mean reduction -1.142 administrations/patient). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These simple educational strategies about the causes and treatment of insomnia can reduce hypnotic prescribing rates and increase staff confidence in both the medical and psychological management of insomnia.

Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines. METHODS: The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel. RESULTS: The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods.

Clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19: Living recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

To date, 18 living recommendations for the clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19 have been issued by the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. This includes recommendations on mode of birth, delayed umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, antenatal corticosteroids, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, disease-modifying treatments (including dexamethasone, remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and advanced respiratory support interventions (prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Through continuous evidence surveillance, these living recommendations are updated in near real-time to ensure clinicians in Australia have reliable, evidence-based guidelines for clinical decision-making. Please visit https://covid19evidence.net.au/ for the latest recommendation updates.

Defining key questions for clinical practice guidelines: a novel approach for developing clinically relevant questions.

BACKGROUND: There is no standardised protocol for developing clinically relevant guideline questions. We aimed to create such a protocol and to apply it to developing a new guideline. METHODS: We reviewed international guideline manuals and, through consensus, combined steps for developing clinical questions to produce a best-practice protocol that incorporated qualitative research. The protocol was applied to develop clinical questions for a guideline for general practitioners. RESULTS: A best-practice protocol incorporating qualitative research was created. Using the protocol, we developed 10 clinical questions that spanned diagnosis, management and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline developers can apply this protocol to develop clinically relevant guideline questions.

What clinical challenges are associated with diagnosing and managing work-related mental health conditions? A qualitative study in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: When providing care for patients with work-related mental health conditions (MHCs), the general practitioner's (GP) role includes clinical care, patient advocacy and assessment of a patient's ability to work. GPs can experience difficulty representing these competing roles. As clinical guidelines were being developed to assist GPs in providing this care, our aim was to identify the clinical challenges GPs experience when diagnosing and managing patients with work-related MHCs. DESIGN: Qualitative research. SETTING: This study was conducted in general practice and workers' compensation settings across Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five GPs, seven psychiatrists and nine compensation scheme workers. GPs were eligible to participate if they were actively treating (or treated within the previous three years) patient(s) who had submitted a workers' compensation claim for a MHC. Psychiatrists and compensation scheme workers were eligible to participate if they were active in these roles, as they are best placed to identify additional clinical challenges GPs themselves did not raise. METHOD: Participants were invited by letter to participate in qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews. Prior to each interview, participants were asked to reflect on two case vignettes, each depicting a patient's illness trajectory over 12 months. Data were thematically analysed using inductive and deductive techniques and then categorised by stages of clinical reasoning. RESULTS: Participants reported clinical challenges across four key areas: (1) Diagnosis (identifying appropriate diagnostic tools, determining the severity and work-relatedness of a MHC, and managing the implications of labelling the patient with MHC). (2) Management (determining optimal treatment, recommending work participation). (3) Referral (ambiguity of communication pathways within compensation schemes). (4) Procedure (difficulties navigating compensation systems). CONCLUSION: We found that GPs experienced clinical challenges at all stages of care for people with work-related MHCs. We were also able to identify systemic and procedural issues that influence a GP's ability to provide care for patients with work-related MHCs.

What is the effect of electronic clinical handovers on patient outcomes? A systematic review.

Handover between physicians is a high-risk event for communication errors. Using electronic handover platforms has potential to improve the quality of informational transfer and therefore minimise this risk. This systematic review sought to compare the effectiveness of electronic handover methods on patient outcomes. Articles were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMbase, Scopus and CINAHL databases. Studies involving electronic handover between two healthcare personnel or teams, and which described patientspecific outcomes, were included. This search yielded 390 articles, with a total of nine publications included in the analysis. Outcomes reported in studies included length of stay, adverse event rates, time to procedure and handover completeness. This review suggests that e-handover may improve the handover completeness; however, it is unclear at this time if that translates to an improvement in patient care. The lack of reliable evidence highlights the need for further research exploring the effect of e-handovers on patient care.