Clinical Practice Guidelines for person-centred handover practices in the emergency department: A scoping review protocol

Handover practices in the emergency department from emergency care practitioners to healthcare professionals is the first point in transition of care. These handover practices are unique and should be done in a meticulous way. Handover practices increase patient safety and reduces information loss. Current handover practices do not advocate for the inclusion of patients, families and/ or carers, yet they are the only constant factor in the handover process and their inclusion to move towards handover practices guided by the principles of person centredness. <br> A scoping review will be used to explore current literature regarding clinical practice guidelines for person centred handover practices. Scoping reviews are useful in mapping out the key concepts which underpins a specific research area as well as merging together literature in disciplines with developing evidence. Furthermore, scoping reviews allows for the broader examining of a broader area to identify gaps in the research knowledge base, clarify key concepts and report on the types of evidence that address and inform practice as well as exploring the way research has been conducted (Peters <em>et al.</em>, 2020:2121; Jordan <em>et al.</em>, 2018:2). Scoping reviews are conducted in the following instances one being that researchers may be more interested in the identification of certain characteristics/concepts in sources of evidence, and in the mapping, reporting or discussion of these characteristics/concepts (Munn <em>et al.</em>, 2018:2) and there for a scoping review would be conducted in this study. First to identify the characteristics of current person-centred handover practices and from there investigating current practices which can be used in the development of preliminary clinical practice guidelines. Furthermore, because the researcher wants to identify the types of evidence available on person centred handover practices and identify the key concepts related to these handover practices a scoping review would be more suitable. Although it is suggested that a systematic review is more suitable when gathering information for clinical practice guideline development the researcher has found that the amount of information currently available on the topic of person-centred handover practices would not be sufficient to conduct a credible systematic review. In this study the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) priori scoping review protocol would be used and developed prior to undertaking the review to guide the review process. Screening of the available evidence and selection of literature pilot testing will be done prior to the commencement of the review by the review team to ensure that consistency in the approach taken in the study selection process (Peters <em>et al.</em>, (2020:2124). This review protocol will include the objectives and methods of the scoping review and details of the proposed plan. Should changes to the set-out plan occur the reviewers will indicate them clearly in the “methods” section of the scoping review report. The framework of the protocol will include a title, a background to the scoping review, the review question, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, participants, concept, context, searching strategy, data extraction, charting of results, discussion, conclusion and implications for research and practice. As suggested by Peters <em>et al.</em>, (2020:2121) the scoping review in this study would be done by two reviewers (the researcher and a co-reviewer) with a third reviewer (the supervisor) to resolve disagreements should consensus not be reached. The researcher has undergone training in the conducting of scoping reviews at the JBI institute. <br> The following review question, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key words would be used as part of the review protocol. The review protocol will be developed prior to commencing with the scoping review and uploaded on the JBISumari for project registration as well as in the BMJ Journal should it not be accepted on the JBISumari. <br> <strong>Review questions: </strong> · What clinical practice guidelines are available on person-centred handover practices between emergency care practitioners and healthcare professionals in the ED? · What content does the available clinical practice guidelines for handover practices include? <br> <strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>The Participants, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework will be used to determine studies eligible for inclusion in this review (Peters, et al., 2022). <em>Participants:</em> Both emergency care practitioners transporting patients to the emergency department and healthcare professionals (doctors and nurses) involved in handover practices. <em>Concept:</em> The concept of interest is clinical practice guidelines for person-centred handover practices between emergency care practitioners and healthcare professionals in the ED. All studies related to person-centred handovers in the ED will be included. <em>Context: </em>The scoping review will consider studies that have been conducted in emergency departments, emergency rooms, or emergency centers. Studies conducted in any geographical area will be considered. <br> <strong>Types of sources: </strong>No time frame will be applied to take advantage of all available literature. Primary sources as well as evidence synthesis that have included the primary sources will be included, except where data have already been included from the primary source and no new additional data incorporated. The review will include experimental, quasi-experimental, analystical observational studies, case control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, descriptive observational study designs, all qualitative study designs, systematic reviews, text and opinion papers will be considred. <strong>Methods: </strong> The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews (Peters, et al., 2021). <em>Search strategy: </em>The search strategy aims to locate both published and unpublished studies. A initial limited search of PubMed was conducted to identify articles on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles were used to develop a full search strategy. The initial search will be conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed) and CINAHL (EBSCO). A second more detailed search will be conducted using the identified search terms across MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus and Web of Science. Thirdly the reference list of all included sources of evidence will be screened for additional studies. Additionally, sources of unpublished studies/ grey literature to be searched include conference abstracts and proceedings. A search on ResearhGate and Google Scholar will be done to identify any additional literature that might not be available through conventional databases. Finally, a search for organizations that publish clinical practice guidelines will be conducted, for example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), American College of Physicians, Royal College of Nursing (RCN), and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO). <em>Study/Source of Evidence Selection: </em> Following the search, all identified citations will be collated and uploaded into Mendeley reference management software 2022 (Mendeley Ltd., Elsevier, New York) and duplicates removed. Following a pilot test, the titles and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers for assessment against the inclusion criteria for the review. Potentially relevant sources will be retrieved in full, and their citation details imported into the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). Full text of all selected articles will be assessed by two independant reviewers. Reasons for exclusion of evidence sources will be documented. Any disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. PRISMA-ScR will be used for the reporting. <em>Data extraction: </em>Data will be extracted from articles included in the scoping review by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. <em>Data analysis and presentation: </em>The extracted data will be presented in tabular form with an accompanying narrative summary describing the results in detail. The results will be presented in relation to the objective and questions of the review. Both review questions will be tabulated in the same table with separate columns for available clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice guideline content. <em> </em> <br>

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.