Surgical Handover Core Outcome Measures (SH-CORE): a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover.

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. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: 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. DISCUSSION: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative 2675.  http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675 .

Assessing current handover practices in surgery: A survey of non-consultant hospital doctors in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Handovers of care are potentially hazardous moments in the patient journey and can lead to harm if conducted poorly. Through a national survey of surgical doctors in Ireland, this paper assesses contemporary surgical handover practices and evaluates barriers and facilitators of effective handover. METHODS: After ethical approval and pre-testing with a representative sample, a cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs) working in the Republic of Ireland. A mixed-methods approach was used, combining data using triangulation design. MAIN FINDINGS: A total of 201 responses were received (18.5%). Most participants were senior house officers or senior registrars (49.7% and 37.3%). Most people (85.1%) reported that information received during handover was missing or incorrect at least some of the time. One-third of respondents reported that a near-miss had occurred as a result of handover within the past three months, and handover-related errors resulted in minor (16.9%), moderate (4.9%), or major (1.5%) harm. Only 11.4% had received any formal training. Reported barriers to handover included negative attitudes, a lack of institutional support, and competing clinical activities. Facilitators included process standardisation, improved access to resources, and staff engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical NCHDs working in Irish hospitals reported poor compliance with international best practice for handover and identified potential harms. Process standardisation, appropriate staff training, and the provision of necessary handover-related resources is required at a national level to address this significant patient safety concern.

Daily handover in surgery: systematic review and a novel taxonomy of interventions and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Poor-quality handovers lead to adverse outcomes for patients; however, there is a lack of evidence to support safe surgical handovers. This systematic review aims to summarize the interventions available to improve end-of-shift surgical handover. A novel taxonomy of interventions and outcomes and a modified quality assessment tool are also described. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE®, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles up to April 2023. Comparative studies describing interventions for daily in-hospital surgical handovers between doctors were included. Studies were grouped according to their interventions and outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 6139 citations were retrieved, and 41 studies met the inclusion criteria. The total patient sample sizes in the control and intervention groups were 11 946 and 11 563 patients, respectively. Most studies were pre-/post-intervention cohort studies (92.7%), and most (73.2%) represented level V evidence. The mean quality assessment score was 53.4% (17.1). A taxonomy of handover interventions and outcomes was developed, with interventions including handover tools, process standardization measures, staff education, and the use of mnemonics. More than 25% of studies used a document as the only intervention. Overall, 55 discrete outcomes were assessed in four categories including process (n = 27), staff (n = 14), patient (n = 12) and system-level (n = 2) outcomes. Significant improvements were seen in 51.8%, 78.5%, 58.3% (n = 9761 versus 9312 patients) and 100% of these outcomes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most publications demonstrate that good-quality surgical handover improves outcomes and many interventions appear to be effective; however, studies are methodologically heterogeneous. These novel taxonomies and quality assessment tool will help standardize future studies.