Deficits in information transfer between anaesthesiologist and postanaesthesia care unit staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The immediate postoperative period is important, as the patient recovers from the acute derangements resulting from the surgical insult and anaesthesia. Incomplete or incorrect communication between the anaesthesiologist and the postanaesthesia care unit nurse during the transfer process may lead to dangerous clinical mistakes. The literature examining handovers from operating room to the postanaesthesia care unit is scarce. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to examine the current transfer practice through observation of handovers between the anaesthesiologists and the postanaesthesia care unit staff in order to identify data omissions. The secondary objective was to learn which data items the clinicians and nurses thought were a necessary part of the transfer process and whether this information was communicated at the time of handover. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: Academic hospital in Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: After Research Ethics Board approval, a prospective observational study was conducted at a university-affiliated teaching centre. During a 2-month period, multiple observations of patient handover were performed. The data provided were marked on a checklist. At the end of the study, participating nurses and physicians were surveyed regarding the necessity of communicating different items on the checklist. RESULTS: A total of 526 transfers were observed. Of 29 data items examined, only two items (type of surgery and analgesics given) were reported in more than 90% of handovers. Only three items (difficult intubation, ST-wave changes and co-morbidities/healthy) were reported in more than 80% of cases. Many items deemed as needed to be reported by the participants in the study were not communicated. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the handover process is inconsistent and in some cases information defined as important by the physicians and the nurses is not transferred. Further studies need to investigate whether a handover protocol leads to a minimisation of omissions in information transfer.
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 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".