Shift-to-shift handoff: A comparison between two methods of conveying essential information in a University Hospital in North-eastern Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present study focuses on effective communication among nurses during a shift-to-shift handoff. Methods: The completeness of data conveyed during the shift-to-shift handoff was compared in two University Hospital Units, before and after the introduction of a pre-printed sheet summarizing the most important patients’ piece of information. The study took place in a University Hospital located in North-eastern Italy. In the first study phase 111 single patient’s handoffs were analyzed: 52 in Operative Unit 1 (OU1) and 59 in Operative Unit 1 (OU2). In the second phase of the study 39 handoffs were considered: 19 in the OU1 and 20 in the OU2. The intervention consisted of the introduction of a pre-printed semi structured sheet summarizing the patients’ information. The main outcome measures were the patients’ information written on the form and the data available for consultation by colleagues on the next work shift. Results: The four categories of items that most significantly increased after the introduction of the semi-structured form were respectively: neurological status, vital signs, pain assessment and wound care. However, none of the items that showed a reduction in citation, both for single OU and overall, were significant. Conclusions: This study shows how the introduction of a pre-printed form forces the operators to hold in consideration important critical values of a patient, thus bettering the quality and safety of the handoffs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".