Patient perspectives on surgical handover quality: a mixed-methods survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In-hospital handover of patient care is an essential but high-risk professional activity that often lacks transparency for patients. The purpose of this survey was to gain insight into surgical patients' perceptions of handover communications between doctors, incorporating patient and public involvement to enhance accessibility and understanding. METHODS: A cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey was developed with patient and public involvement and distributed to general surgery patients in two University Teaching Hospitals between 24 October 2023 and 21 July 2024. Comparative analyses of quantitative data were performed using McNemar's test for paired nominal data and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous data. Free-text responses underwent thematic analysis to validate and expand on quantitative findings. Patient and public involvement partners contributed to study design, methodology, and the final manuscript. RESULTS: = 14.53, p = 0.0002). Patient perceptions of the handover process were generally positive; although satisfaction declined significantly with weekend handovers (p < 0.05). Thematic analysis identified four themes: (1) the impact of poor inter-professional communication, (2) the importance of teamwork, (3) external factors influencing handover effectiveness, and (4) patient nonchalance about their care. The use of patient and public involvement in this study improved survey accessibility and understanding of the concept and importance of handover. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows limited prior awareness of handover between doctors among surgical patients, especially the potential hazards that can arise if performed poorly. Patient and public involvement improved accessibility and understanding of the topic; however, challenges such as adequate training for meaningful engagement remain.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it