Physician-physician handover from acute care to rehabilitation setting: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review is to map the existing evidence that describes strategies to improve handover from the acute care to rehabilitation settings. INTRODUCTION: Poor handover processes have been associated with preventable errors, delays in care, and adverse patient outcomes. Effective physician-to-physician handover during transitions of care is critical to ensuring patient safety and optimizing clinical outcomes. Physician handover between acute and rehabilitation care settings is particularly complicated, as it requires transferring detailed and timely information for continuity of care for medically and/or surgically complex patients between components of healthcare systems with different cultures and goals of care. Despite numerous studies being published on handover, there has yet to be a synthesis of the existing literature that seeks to explore handovers across acute to rehabilitation settings as well as how care transitions can be improved. This scoping review aims to map the existing evidence on physician-to-physician handover from acute care to rehabilitation. METHODS: This review will be conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search will be performed across the following electronic databases: MEDLINE(R) ALL (Ovid), Embase Classic + Embase (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCO) and Web of Science (Clarivate). All rounds of screening, data extraction, and data synthesis will be conducted independently with each stage performed in duplicate. The extracted data will be summarized both quantitively with descriptive statistics and qualitatively using content analysis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Qualitative and quantitative studies published in English that discuss physician-physician handover from acute care to rehabilitation settings will be included. All geographical areas will be considered. Case reports, case series, commentaries, protocols, opinion pieces (editorials), or abstracts from conferences will be excluded.
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 | 0.096 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.013 |
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".