Feedback and Assessment Tools for Handoffs: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Resident handoff communication skills are essential components of medical education training. There are no previous systematic reviews of feedback and evaluation tools for physician handoffs. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of articles focused on inpatient handoff feedback or assessment tools. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic review of English-language literature published from January 1, 2008, to May 13, 2015 on handoff feedback or assessment tools used in undergraduate or graduate medical education. All articles were reviewed by 2 independent abstractors. Included articles were assessed using a quality scoring system. RESULTS: A total of 26 articles with 32 tools met inclusion criteria, including 3 focused on feedback, 8 on assessment, and 15 on both feedback and assessment. All tools were used in an inpatient setting. Feedback and/or assessment improved the content or organization measures of handoff, while process and professionalism measures were less reliably improved. The Handoff Clinical Evaluation Exercise or a similar tool was used most frequently. Of included studies, 23% (6 of 26) were validity evidence studies, and 31% (8 of 26) of articles included a tool with behavioral anchors. A total of 35% (9 of 26) of studies used simulation or standardized patient encounters. CONCLUSIONS: A number of feedback and assessment tools for physician handoffs in several specialties have been studied. Limited research has been done on the studied tools. These tools may assist medical educators in assessing trainees' handoff skills.

Shift-to-Shift Handoff Effects on Patient Safety and Outcomes.

Multiple health care organizations have identified handoffs as a source of clinical errors; however, few studies have linked handoff interventions to improved patient outcomes. This systematic review of English-language research articles, published January 2008 to May 2015 and focusing on shift-to-shift handoff interventions and patient outcomes, yielded 10 774 unique articles. Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria, measuring each of the following: patient falls (n = 7), reportable events (n = 6), length of stay (n = 4), mortality (n = 4), code calls (n = 4), medication errors (n = 4), medical errors (n = 3), procedural complications (n = 2), pressure ulcers (n = 2), weekend discharges (n = 2), and nosocomial infections (n = 2). One study each also measured time to first intervention, restraint use, overnight transfusions, and out-of-hours deteriorations. Studies that reported funding had higher quality scores. It is difficult to identify trends in the handoff research because of simultaneous implementation of multiple interventions and heterogeneity of the interventions, outcomes measured, and settings. The authors call for increased handoff research funding, especially for studies that include patient outcome measures.