Tools for care transfer in intensive care units: systematic review of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of tools for care transfer in patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Systematic review consulted in the databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS until August 2022. The descriptors “Patient Handoff”, “Continuity of Patient Care”, “SBAR”, “ISBAR”, “SBAR-R”, “ISBARR”, “ISOBAR”, “Communication” and “Intensive Care Units” were used. Observational studies use of any tools to transfer care in patients admitted to any ICU were included. Risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: the findings suggest that the professionals' perceptions are positive and that there was an improvement in multidisciplinary communication. As for the impact on patient care, the findings suggest that the use of transfer tools in care favors the complete completion of the medical record, as well as the notification of events in the medical records. Conclusions: no robust evidence was found regarding the use of ICU care transfer tools.
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 | 0.019 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".