Evaluation of a nursing handoff educational bundle to improve nursing student handoff communications: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Inadequate handoff education in prelicensure nursing programs may pose a significant latent safety risk. This pilot study evaluates a Nursing Handoff Educational Bundle (NHEB) for a cohort of Accelerated Bachelor of Science (ABS) nursing students. The Evidence-Based Bundle consists of an educational workshop, a standardized handoff format, clinical faculty education, and structured, formative evaluation of student handoffs. This study was implemented during Adult Health clinical experiences conducted at four different University-affiliated healthcare institutions in the Northeastern United States. Methods : A pre-test, post-test design was used with a convenience sample of 28 ABS nursing students. Fourteen students who received the NHEB were compared to a similar group (n = 14) who were not exposed. Student handoffs were observed and rated using the Handoff Clinical Examination (CEX) tool while providing and receiving handoffs during clinical experiences. Data was obtained at the beginning and the end of a 15-week time period. Results : The provider handoff scores in the intervention group improved significantly (M = 4.64, SD = 1.3) over the comparison group change scores (M = 1.5, SD 1.34) when measured by independent samples t -test ( t = 7.33, p = .000). The handoff recipients ’ scores in the intervention group also improved significantly (m = 5.5, SD = 1.01) compared to no improvement in the recipient control group (M = -0.36, SD = 1.39), ( t = 12.7, p = .000). Conclusions : Without structured handoff education, nursing students are passive recipients during handoffs and do not engage in safety communication practices. Exposure to a NHEB improves student handoff communication skills and provides an opportunity to practice evidence-based handoff skills with structured support during clinical experiences. The NHEB could be considered for incorporation into prelicensure programs. Further study using a larger sample size is recommended based on these preliminary findings. Additionally, this intervention should be evaluated in novice nurse cohorts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".