A systematic review of the literature on the evaluation of handoff tools: Implications for research and practice

Joanna Abraham, Thomas Kannampallil, Vimla Patel

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

78 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective Given the complexities of the healthcare environment, efforts to develop standardized handoff practices have led to widely varying manifestations of handoff tools. A systematic review of the literature on handoff evaluation studies was performed to investigate the nature, methodological, and theoretical foundations underlying the evaluation of handoff tools and their adequacy and appropriateness in achieving standardization goals. Method We searched multiple databases for articles evaluating handoff tools published between 1 February 1983 and 15 June 2012. The selected articles were categorized along the following dimensions: handoff tool characteristics, standardization initiatives, methodological framework, and theoretical perspectives underlying the evaluation. Results Thirty-six articles met our inclusion criteria. Handoff evaluations were conducted primarily on electronic tools (64%), with a more recent focus on electronic medical record-integrated tools (36% since 2008). Most evaluations centered on intra-departmental tools (95%). Evaluation studies were quasi-experimental (42%) or observational (50%), with a major focus on handoff-related outcome measures (94%) using predominantly survey-based tools (70%) with user satisfaction metrics (53%). Most of the studies (81%) based their evaluation on aspects of standardization that included continuity of care and patient safety. Conclusions The nature, methodological, and theoretical foundations of handoff tool evaluations varied significantly in terms of their quality and rigor, thereby limiting their ability to inform strategic standardization initiatives. Future research should utilize rigorous, multi-method qualitative and quantitative approaches that capture the contextual nuances of handoffs, and evaluate their effect on patient-related outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)154-162
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Research
Aptitude
Continuity of Patient Care
Electronic Health Records
Patient Safety
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Databases
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics

Cite this

A systematic review of the literature on the evaluation of handoff tools : Implications for research and practice. / Abraham, Joanna; Kannampallil, Thomas; Patel, Vimla.

In: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 21, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 154-162.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{09f2be007d5e4f8e98734c5eb47e8c63,
title = "A systematic review of the literature on the evaluation of handoff tools: Implications for research and practice",
abstract = "Objective Given the complexities of the healthcare environment, efforts to develop standardized handoff practices have led to widely varying manifestations of handoff tools. A systematic review of the literature on handoff evaluation studies was performed to investigate the nature, methodological, and theoretical foundations underlying the evaluation of handoff tools and their adequacy and appropriateness in achieving standardization goals. Method We searched multiple databases for articles evaluating handoff tools published between 1 February 1983 and 15 June 2012. The selected articles were categorized along the following dimensions: handoff tool characteristics, standardization initiatives, methodological framework, and theoretical perspectives underlying the evaluation. Results Thirty-six articles met our inclusion criteria. Handoff evaluations were conducted primarily on electronic tools (64{\%}), with a more recent focus on electronic medical record-integrated tools (36{\%} since 2008). Most evaluations centered on intra-departmental tools (95{\%}). Evaluation studies were quasi-experimental (42{\%}) or observational (50{\%}), with a major focus on handoff-related outcome measures (94{\%}) using predominantly survey-based tools (70{\%}) with user satisfaction metrics (53{\%}). Most of the studies (81{\%}) based their evaluation on aspects of standardization that included continuity of care and patient safety. Conclusions The nature, methodological, and theoretical foundations of handoff tool evaluations varied significantly in terms of their quality and rigor, thereby limiting their ability to inform strategic standardization initiatives. Future research should utilize rigorous, multi-method qualitative and quantitative approaches that capture the contextual nuances of handoffs, and evaluate their effect on patient-related outcomes.",
author = "Joanna Abraham and Thomas Kannampallil and Vimla Patel",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001351",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "154--162",
journal = "Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA",
issn = "1067-5027",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of the literature on the evaluation of handoff tools

T2 - Implications for research and practice

AU - Abraham, Joanna

AU - Kannampallil, Thomas

AU - Patel, Vimla

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Objective Given the complexities of the healthcare environment, efforts to develop standardized handoff practices have led to widely varying manifestations of handoff tools. A systematic review of the literature on handoff evaluation studies was performed to investigate the nature, methodological, and theoretical foundations underlying the evaluation of handoff tools and their adequacy and appropriateness in achieving standardization goals. Method We searched multiple databases for articles evaluating handoff tools published between 1 February 1983 and 15 June 2012. The selected articles were categorized along the following dimensions: handoff tool characteristics, standardization initiatives, methodological framework, and theoretical perspectives underlying the evaluation. Results Thirty-six articles met our inclusion criteria. Handoff evaluations were conducted primarily on electronic tools (64%), with a more recent focus on electronic medical record-integrated tools (36% since 2008). Most evaluations centered on intra-departmental tools (95%). Evaluation studies were quasi-experimental (42%) or observational (50%), with a major focus on handoff-related outcome measures (94%) using predominantly survey-based tools (70%) with user satisfaction metrics (53%). Most of the studies (81%) based their evaluation on aspects of standardization that included continuity of care and patient safety. Conclusions The nature, methodological, and theoretical foundations of handoff tool evaluations varied significantly in terms of their quality and rigor, thereby limiting their ability to inform strategic standardization initiatives. Future research should utilize rigorous, multi-method qualitative and quantitative approaches that capture the contextual nuances of handoffs, and evaluate their effect on patient-related outcomes.

AB - Objective Given the complexities of the healthcare environment, efforts to develop standardized handoff practices have led to widely varying manifestations of handoff tools. A systematic review of the literature on handoff evaluation studies was performed to investigate the nature, methodological, and theoretical foundations underlying the evaluation of handoff tools and their adequacy and appropriateness in achieving standardization goals. Method We searched multiple databases for articles evaluating handoff tools published between 1 February 1983 and 15 June 2012. The selected articles were categorized along the following dimensions: handoff tool characteristics, standardization initiatives, methodological framework, and theoretical perspectives underlying the evaluation. Results Thirty-six articles met our inclusion criteria. Handoff evaluations were conducted primarily on electronic tools (64%), with a more recent focus on electronic medical record-integrated tools (36% since 2008). Most evaluations centered on intra-departmental tools (95%). Evaluation studies were quasi-experimental (42%) or observational (50%), with a major focus on handoff-related outcome measures (94%) using predominantly survey-based tools (70%) with user satisfaction metrics (53%). Most of the studies (81%) based their evaluation on aspects of standardization that included continuity of care and patient safety. Conclusions The nature, methodological, and theoretical foundations of handoff tool evaluations varied significantly in terms of their quality and rigor, thereby limiting their ability to inform strategic standardization initiatives. Future research should utilize rigorous, multi-method qualitative and quantitative approaches that capture the contextual nuances of handoffs, and evaluate their effect on patient-related outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890474831&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890474831&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001351

DO - 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001351

M3 - Review article

C2 - 23703824

AN - SCOPUS:84890474831

VL - 21

SP - 154

EP - 162

JO - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

JF - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

SN - 1067-5027

IS - 1

ER -