View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Developing an Educational Blueprint for Surgical Handover Curricula: A Critical Review of the Evidence

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Developing an Educational Blueprint for Surgical Handover Curricula: A Critical Review of the Evidence
Language: English
Authors: Anastasija Simiceva, Jessica M. Ryan, Walter Eppich, Dara O. Kavanagh, Deborah A. McNamara, Marie Morris
Source: Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2025 30(5):1693-1707.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Medical Education, Guidelines, Surgery, Teaching Methods, Evidence Based Practice, Curriculum Development, Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students, Medical Students, Intervention
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-025-10410-1
ISSN: 1382-4996
1573-1677
Abstract: Background: Currently no guidelines exist for the development of surgical handover educational curricula. This critical review synthesises the relevant literature to identify best approaches to handover education and develop an evidence-based framework for teaching and assessing surgical handover skills. Methods: The following resources were critically reviewed by two independent researchers to identify key educational components; (1) all published studies primarily utilising an educational intervention to improve surgical handover up to May 2023, (2) key international guidelines and (3) reviews of all handover interventions published within the last 10 years. Results: A total of eight comparative studies, two systematic reviews, and four handover guidelines were included. Findings were reported across eight domains; including educational setting, approach, format, content, resources used, assessment, student feedback, and follow-up training. A framework for developing surgical handover curricula was also reported. Conclusion: The reported educational framework or 'blueprint' aims to assist educators across multiple settings to develop evidence-based surgical handover curricula for undergraduate and postgraduate learners. Future studies need to achieve higher Kirkpatrick levels to demonstrate both effectiveness and sustainability of educational interventions, ensuring safer patient care.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1492547
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG1F3zxLYRTp77dK80C-MwVAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDE1ysxLHv2hc_vEohAIBEICBmuRVXkyCIeoboU2BiqqPqr64ZX3TziuCvoW52eQ1j_FHZj-veYAfrelbzaKS5weehe6DPxe6yb2iYCMV51YbKuxivmEgy_jgeCwoz_7HfJ1uxxxT0T0Br5UJ6FU6_HcgJM01Tku_-wj7rn_aMCt6Rb5Mqk8YdlMfT1pvmNpq8VGHLFcrAhuq-PBPWPZL1pYAr057JpmQGp6k5ew=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188954066;oak01nov.25;2025Oct31.06:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188954066-1">Developing an educational blueprint for surgical handover curricula: a critical review of the evidence </title> <p>Background Currently no guidelines exist for the development of surgical handover educational curricula. This critical review synthesises the relevant literature to identify best approaches to handover education and develop an evidence-based framework for teaching and assessing surgical handover skills. Methods The following resources were critically reviewed by two independent researchers to identify key educational components; (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) all published studies primarily utilising an educational intervention to improve surgical handover up to May 2023, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) key international guidelines and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) reviews of all handover interventions published within the last 10 years. Results A total of eight comparative studies, two systematic reviews, and four handover guidelines were included. Findings were reported across eight domains; including educational setting, approach, format, content, resources used, assessment, student feedback, and follow-up training. A framework for developing surgical handover curricula was also reported. Conclusion The reported educational framework or 'blueprint' aims to assist educators across multiple settings to develop evidence-based surgical handover curricula for undergraduate and postgraduate learners. Future studies need to achieve higher Kirkpatrick levels to demonstrate both effectiveness and sustainability of educational interventions, ensuring safer patient care.</p> <p>Keywords: Handover; Handoff; Sign-out; Surgical education; Surgical training; Medical and Health Sciences Public Health and Health Services Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10410-1.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Handover entails transfer of patient information and care responsibility between healthcare professionals (Abdellatif et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>]). Poor handover leads to adverse patient outcomes (Abdellatif et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>]; Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref7">14</reflink>]; Lingard et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]), poor patient satisfaction, longer hospital stays (Gordon et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]), and treatment delays (Desmedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]). All healthcare professionals, including those in training, must be able to perform this skill effectively (Abdellatif et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>The introduction of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty-hour restrictions and the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) have led to reduced shift times, and therefore increased patient handovers. Effective handover requires complex skills and repeated practice to consolidate key competencies (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref12">13</reflink>]). To achieve this goal, incorporating the teaching of handover skills across the spectrum of clinical practice is essential (Abdellatif et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]). Although some medical educators have emphasised handover skills for students and practising medical staff, educational gaps remain, and teaching and assessment methods are heterogeneous (Gordon et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>The most prominent international handover guidelines were published as early as 20 years ago (Australian Medical Association, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]; Bywaters et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]; RCSE, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]), but due to the lack of available evidence at that time, cite only one comparative study between them. No handover guideline includes a structured curriculum specifically focused on handover training. There remains a need for universally applicable frameworks to develop discipline-specific handover curricula that are based on current evidence.</p> <p>This critical review aims to; (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>) determine the optimal setting, approach, format, and content for surgical handover education, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>) identify methods of assessment and feedback approaches and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>) provide educators with an evidence-based blueprint for teaching and assessing handover skills.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-3">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188954066-4">Study design</hd> <p>Multiple sources of literature were critically reviewed (Kahlke et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]) to develop a curricular framework ('blueprint') for surgical handover; including comparative studies, systematic reviews, and handover guidelines. While comparative studies were identified systematically, the inclusion of other sources of information were deliberately selective, rather than exhaustive (Eva, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref22">9</reflink>]; Kahlke et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]). The author group comprises educational experts in surgery and healthcare communication, and so where gaps in the evidence were identified, expert opinion was used to address these areas.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-5">Search strategy and study selection (Table 1)</hd> <p>Table 1 Information source inclusion and exclusion criteria</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Type of information source</p></th><th align="left"><p>Inclusion criteria</p></th><th align="left"><p>Exclusion criteria</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>1. Comparative studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>Population/setting: All surgical physician learners (undergraduate and postgraduate)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Educational intervention is insufficiently described to replicate</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intervention: Primarily an educational intervention with the aim of improving surgical handover practice</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Comparison: Any (e.g., routine handover practice, no intervention received)</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Outcomes: Any</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>2. Systematic reviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>Population: All learners</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reviews published more than 10 years ago</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intervention: Any interventions aiming to improve healthcare handover (any discipline)</p></td><td align="left"><p>No/minimal educational findings reported</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Comparison/control: Any</p></td><td align="left"><p>Same findings reported in a more recent review (e.g., in a systematic review of systematic reviews)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Outcomes: Any educational outcomes</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Guidelines</p></td><td align="left"><p>Guidelines covering handover in healthcare settings</p></td><td align="left"><p>No educational recommendations reported</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>This review builds on the methodology reported in a previous systematic review of surgical handover interventions (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref24">26</reflink>]), conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Page et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]) and AMSTAR (Shea et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]) guidelines. Original, comparative, studies were included if they primarily used an educational intervention to improve surgical handover practice in undergraduate and postgraduate settings. Articles were excluded if the educational intervention was insufficiently described. The previous systematic review excluded studies involving students and newly appointed doctors who had not yet entered clinical practice; these excluded studies, and any relevant included studies (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref27">26</reflink>]), were reassessed for the current critical review. The described search strategy (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref28">26</reflink>]) was updated to May 2023. With the help of an information specialist, a new education-specific search was also carried out on the PubMed, Ovid Medline, MedEd and Web of Science databases (full search terms are provided in Online Resource 1). The original Endnote (X20) library (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref29">26</reflink>]) was also searched for systematic reviews of all healthcare handover interventions from the last 10 years. Additionally, healthcare handover guidelines which reported educational recommendations were included (Table 1). Study screening and selection were carried out as previously described (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-6">Data extraction</hd> <p>Templates were created using Microsoft Excel and Word (<sups>©</sups>2022 Microsoft). A subset of papers was allocated to two reviewers (JR and AS) for independent primary data extraction, with subsequent validation of all papers by the second reviewer. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus with the wider research team. For each comparative study, data on the study design, learner characteristics, sample size, format and content of education, outcomes, and Kirkpatrick level (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>]) were extracted. Where Kirkpatrick level was not reported in the manuscript, the authors inferred this information from the outcomes reported. For systematic reviews, the aims, search limits, total included studies, target learners, main educational findings, and highest study Kirkpatrick level were extracted. Only educational recommendations included in the guidelines were extracted.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-7">Data synthesis & quality assessment</hd> <p>Extracted data were reported in the following categories; educational setting, approach and format, content, resources utilised, assessment of training effectiveness, student feedback, and follow-up training and assessment.</p> <p>Interventional studies were assessed according to Kirkpatrick levels of educational impact (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-8">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188954066-9">Search results</hd> <p>In total, eight comparative studies were identified for inclusion in this review (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]; Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref34">4</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]; Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref37">18</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref40">31</reflink>]). The 7,153 citations retrieved through database searches were screened and a full-text review was performed on 192 papers (Fig. 1). After reviewing the full texts for 25 handover reviews identified during the initial search, data were extracted from five papers. From this, a total of two systematic reviews were included (Online Resource 2) (Desmedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref41">8</reflink>]; Gordon et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]). Data were extracted from six handover guidelines (Online Resource 3); however, only four of these included specific educational recommendations (Abdellatif et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]; Australian Medical Association, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>]; Canadian Association of General Surgeons., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>]; National Clinical Effectiveness Committee, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]), and so the rest were excluded.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-10">Study characteristics</hd> <p>Of the eight included comparative studies (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>]; Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref48">4</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref49">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]; Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref53">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>]), five adopted a pre-/post-intervention cohort design (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref56">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]), two were case–control studies (Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref61">31</reflink>]), and one was a randomised controlled trial (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref62">4</reflink>]) (Table 2). A total of 303 students, interns, and residents were included across the studies, the majority of which (n = 7) were carried out in the USA (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>]; Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]; Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref66">18</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref67">22</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 2 Comparative study characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Author, year</p></th><th align="left"><p>Country</p></th><th align="left"><p>Learners</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sample size</p></th><th align="left"><p>Study design</p></th><th align="left"><p>Format & content of education</p></th><th align="left"><p>Summary of results</p></th><th align="left"><p>Kirkpatrick level</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Bevilacqua et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>USA</p></td><td align="left"><p>4th year students matched to surgical specialties</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pre-/post-intervention cohort</p></td><td align="left"><p>1-h module entitled "Practice handoffs"</p><p>Incorporated into a 2-week surgical boot camp</p></td><td align="left"><p>Improvement in handoff performance according to an ACS standardised grading form (<italic>p</italic> < 0.01)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Britt et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2015</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>USA</p></td><td align="left"><p>Surgical interns</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>RCT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interactive lecture: structure and content of handover based on the handover assessment tool designed by the research team. Followed by simulated handover practice with feedback</p></td><td align="left"><p>Improvement in overall handover performance according to the handover assessment tool in the trained group (<italic>p</italic> < 0.001)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gaffney et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2016</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>USA</p></td><td align="left"><p>Incoming residents from multiple specialties including surgery</p></td><td align="left"><p>84</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pre-/post-intervention cohort</p></td><td align="left"><p>Online handover training module including 4-min video highlighting pitfalls, 15-min didactic screencast, and an MCQ assessment. Followed by in-person simulated handover practice with feedback</p></td><td align="left"><p>Increase in self-reported preparedness to conduct a handover (likert scale survey) after the intervention (<italic>p</italic> < 0.001)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Holt et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>UK</p></td><td align="left"><p>3rd and 4th-year students in surgery and medicine</p></td><td align="left"><p>41</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pre-/post-intervention cohort</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.5 h interactive handover workshop. Including simulated practice with feedback, group discussion, & video examples of handover</p></td><td align="left"><p>Improvement in learner self-reported confidence in delivering handovers (survey; <italic>p</italic> < 0.0001)</p><p>Significant improvement in handover performance on OSCE assessment using the CHAT tool (10 of 12 domains; <italic>p</italic> < 0.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kulaylat et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2023</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>USA</p></td><td align="left"><p>3rd year medical students rotating through surgical clerkships</p></td><td align="left"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>Case control study</p></td><td align="left"><p>90-min handover training session: Including didactic lecture, group discussion, videos of good and bad handover, and guided practice both at the beginning, and end of the session to synthesise learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>No difference in knowledge (MCQ test), confidence, or anxiety (likert scale survey).</p><p>Those who received the intervention were more likely to have actively participated in a handover during their clerkship after the intervention (<italic>p</italic> < 0.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ottinger et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2017</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>USA</p></td><td align="left"><p>Trauma surgical residents</p></td><td align="left"><p>NR</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pre-/post-intervention cohort</p></td><td align="left"><p>Education session: Important handover and communication skills, outline of "Trauma morning report faculty evaluation card", & open assessment of residents presentation skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>Improvement in inclusion of handover information and communication skills of the residents according to the evaluation tool (<italic>p</italic> < 0.01)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Smith et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2015</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>USA</p></td><td align="left"><p>Medical students matched to multiple specialties including surgery</p></td><td align="left"><p>59</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pre-/post-intervention cohort</p></td><td align="left"><p>3-h handover workshop: Including didactic lectures, role-play activities, and group discussion</p></td><td align="left"><p>Improvement in attitudes and confidence towards handover (<italic>p</italic> < 0.01). Improved handover knowledge and ability to write a verbal handover dialogue (<italic>p</italic> < 0.001; participant survey and MCQs). Performance had significantly disimproved on follow-up testing several months later, before commencing residency (training did not coincide with start of clinical duties)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Telem et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2011</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>USA</p></td><td align="left"><p>Surgical residents</p></td><td align="left"><p>58</p></td><td align="left"><p>Case control study</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.5-h handover curriculum: Including videos of good and bad handover, group discussion, role-play scenarios, and didactic lecture on SBAR</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reduction in erroneous order entries in the intervention group (p = 0.003). No change in patient sentinel events</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>*</sups> <emph>CHAT</emph> Clinical handover assessment tool, <emph>MCQ</emph> Multiple choice question, <emph>OSCE</emph> Objective structured clinical examination, <emph>ISBAR</emph> Identify Situation Background Assessment Recommendation, <emph>ACS</emph> American College of Surgeons, <emph>SBAR</emph> Situation Background Assessment Recommendation, <emph>RCT</emph> Randomised Control Trial, <emph>NR</emph> not reported</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-11">Educational findings</hd> <p>The following results have been used to develop a curricular framework (Fig. 2) to assist educators in developing evidence-based surgical handover curricula.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 An Educational Blueprint for Surgical Handover</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-12">Educational setting</hd> <p>Handover training is recommended as part of in-hospital staff induction (Abdellatif et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>]); however, most surgical literature focuses on educational interventions for undergraduate settings (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref71">3</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref72">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref73">13</reflink>]; Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref74">18</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref75">29</reflink>]). Previous training has been delivered in a workshop-style format (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref77">29</reflink>]) and incorporating handover training into 'surgical boot camps' improves handover performance (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>]). No consensus exists on optimal training duration, with in-person workshops lasting a median of 120 (40–180) minutes (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref80">13</reflink>]; Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref81">18</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref82">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref83">31</reflink>]). Online training lacks the benefit of in-person handover practice and has been inadequately tested with only one prior study using this method (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref84">10</reflink>]). The authors propose that it would have value in the form of 'refresher' courses for staff who have previously undergone in-person training, for example during hospital induction.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-13">Educational approach and format</hd> <p>Most studies utilised combined approaches, including didactic (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref85">10</reflink>]; Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref86">18</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref87">22</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref88">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref89">31</reflink>]) and interactive lectures (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref90">4</reflink>]), group discussions (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref91">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref92">13</reflink>]; Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref93">18</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref94">31</reflink>]), video demonstrations of handover (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref95">4</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref96">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref97">13</reflink>]; Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref98">18</reflink>]), and simulated handover practice with (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref99">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref100">31</reflink>]) or without (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref101">4</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref102">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref103">13</reflink>]) feedback. Students prefer simulation-based education and role-play over didactic sessions (Desmedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref104">8</reflink>]). Little information is provided on the recommended format of simulation (National Clinical Effectiveness Committee [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref105">21</reflink>]); however, simulated colleagues do receive training before participating in handover (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref106">4</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref107">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref108">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are two broad categories for structuring workshops: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref109">1</reflink>) information sharing and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref110">2</reflink>) opportunities for active practice, and the most utilised formats include (Gordon et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref111">12</reflink>]);</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Practice handover, receive teaching, practice again, receive feedback</item> <p></p> <item> Receive teaching, practice handover, receive feedback</item> <p></p> <item> Test pre-existing knowledge, receive teaching, practice, receive feedback</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188954066-14">Educational content</hd> <p>International guidelines recommend that optimal handover content (Canadian Association of General Surgeons., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref112">7</reflink>]), technique (Abdellatif et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref113">1</reflink>]), medico-legal issues and local protocols (Australian Medical Association, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>]) are covered. Interventional studies include; the importance of handover (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref115">13</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref116">29</reflink>]), appropriate structure and content (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref117">4</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref118">13</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref119">22</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref120">29</reflink>]), clinical scenarios (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref121">13</reflink>]), video examples of good and bad handover (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref122">10</reflink>]; Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref123">18</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref124">31</reflink>]), and discussion of common errors (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref125">29</reflink>]) and barriers to handover (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref126">13</reflink>]). Students rate video examples of handover highly (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref127">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Various mnemonics to teach handover methods (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref128">13</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref129">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref130">31</reflink>]) have also been included in previous course content. SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation), is the most common method used internationally (Desmedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref131">8</reflink>]). Pre-existing (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref132">3</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref133">13</reflink>]), or newly designed (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref134">4</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref135">22</reflink>]), assessment tools were also used to guide handover curricula. For example, Britt et al., designed a Global Handoff Rating Scale for their randomised controlled trial which structured the content of an interactive lecture (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref136">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-15">Resources used</hd> <p>Regarding resources used, educational interventions required; staffing/faculty (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref137">3</reflink>]; Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref138">4</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref139">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref140">13</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref141">22</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref142">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref143">31</reflink>]), standardised colleagues (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref144">4</reflink>]), video (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref145">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref146">13</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref147">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref148">31</reflink>]) and role play scenario development (Bevilacqua et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref149">3</reflink>]; Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref150">4</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref151">13</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref152">29</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref153">31</reflink>]), and administration (printing, documentation) costs (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref154">13</reflink>]). One study highlighted the cost effectiveness of written scenarios for both training and assessing handover skill (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref155">4</reflink>]). An online training module was also used prior to in-person practice (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref156">10</reflink>]). No studies carried out a formal cost analysis of the intervention used.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-16">Assessment of training effectiveness</hd> <p>In terms of Kirkpatrick levels of educational impact (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref157">17</reflink>]) only one interventional study achieved level IV, demonstrating a significant reduction in erroneous order entries 30-days post-handover training (Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref158">31</reflink>]). Two further studies reported level II outcomes (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref159">13</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref160">29</reflink>]), with one study achieving level III (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref161">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some studies have used self-reported measures to evaluate outcomes, with educational interventions significantly improving confidence, preparedness, and ability to conduct verbal handover (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref162">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref163">13</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref164">29</reflink>]). Undergraduate students also reported that they were more likely to participate in written or verbal handover after education (Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref165">18</reflink>]). Other studies used tests of written knowledge, including Multiple Choice Questions and tests of written handover dialogue (Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref166">18</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref167">29</reflink>]). Guidelines recommend verbal and face-to-face handover where possible (Abdellatif et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref168">1</reflink>]; National Clinical Effectiveness Committee, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref169">20</reflink>]), therefore, the authors assert that assessment of simulated practice rather than written handover dialogue may be a better use of resources.</p> <p>Multiple assessment methods have been used to evaluate surgical handover performance during simulation, including, the 'Handoff CEX' tool (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref170">10</reflink>]), Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station using a modified version of the 'Clinical Handover Assessment Tool' (CHAT) (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref171">13</reflink>]), and a 'Handover Global Assessment Scale' (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref172">4</reflink>]). Several of these lack rigorous validity and reliability testing (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref173">4</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref174">22</reflink>]); however, the most widely used assessment tool is the 'Hand-off CEX' (Desmedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref175">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-17">Student feedback</hd> <p>Some learners received immediate feedback based on their handover performance (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref176">4</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref177">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref178">13</reflink>]), which was provided based on a rating scale and/or check list (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref179">4</reflink>]; Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref180">10</reflink>]) by trained evaluators and peers (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref181">10</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref182">29</reflink>]). Providing feedback after handover practice is well-received by students (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref183">13</reflink>]). Learners found handover curricula to be beneficial (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref184">10</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref185">13</reflink>]), helpful (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref186">10</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref187">31</reflink>]), and representative of common communication failures (Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref188">31</reflink>]). Many would also recommend the educational programme to others (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref189">10</reflink>]; Telem et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref190">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-18">Follow-up training and assessment</hd> <p>No interventional studies provided follow-up training after the initial workshop and follow-up assessment for undergraduate learners demonstrated no sustained improvement in knowledge (Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref191">18</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref192">29</reflink>]). Smith et al. found that while scores improved immediately following their student workshop, they lost skill gains on follow-up testing (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref193">29</reflink>]). Notably, these participants had not yet begun residency and lacked opportunities to practice in a clinical context, amplifying skill decay. Whereas follow-up testing in postgraduate learners (i.e. those already working in clinical roles) demonstrated sustained improvement in handover skills (Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref194">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-19">Discussion</hd> <p>This critical review synthesises best available evidence in surgical handover education from relevant comparative studies, systematic reviews, and international guidelines, offering educators a model adaptable to undergraduate, postgraduate, and low-resource surgical training environments. The findings highlight the importance of interactive, simulation-based approaches to handover training, individual immediate feedback on handover performance, and the opportunity for deliberate repeated practice. Guidelines for the optimal educational setting, approach, format, content, and assessment have been described.</p> <p>Handover competency is an under-taught key professional requirement ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref195">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref196">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref197">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref198">15</reflink>]) which poses a risk to patient safety. One-third of surgical residents feel that handover practices in their institution are unsafe and 5% report a recent occurrence of moderate patient harm as a result, yet only 11% have ever received any formal training (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref199">27</reflink>]). Improved handover significantly reduces patient length of stay (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref200">26</reflink>]), medical errors, and preventable adverse events (Starmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref201">30</reflink>]). Additionally, introducing handover teaching at an early stage promotes confidence in medical students (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref202">13</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref203">29</reflink>]) and increases their likelihood of engaging in handover while on clinical attachments (Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref204">18</reflink>]). The proposed framework should assist surgical educators in providing evidence-based handover training, encouraging safer handover practices and reducing risk to patients.</p> <p>Future research should focus on evaluating and improving knowledge retention over time and the sustainability of interventions. Training should be scheduled as close as possible to the commencement of clinical duties to allow for regular reinforcement, consolidation of learning, and avoidance of skill decay (Kulaylat et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref205">18</reflink>]; Ottinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref206">22</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref207">29</reflink>]). The use of simulation should be further explored as it is one of the most effective ways of teaching complex skills (Chernikova et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref208">6</reflink>]); however, methods must be accurately reported so that they are replicable. The authors also recommend that educational programs aim to accomplish and report outcomes at levels of III or above, to demonstrate the use of skills in practice and a positive impact on patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref209">17</reflink>]). Online training also warrants further exploration, as it could increase remote training, limiting staff time away from clinical activities. Finally, an analysis of the cost-effectiveness and resource requirements of training programmes would also provide valuable insights, particularly to support implementation in low-resource healthcare settings.</p> <p>This review was limited by the quality of the evidence available, with only one study reporting outcomes at Kirkpatrick level IV, limiting assessment of the impact of training on patient outcomes. This is a common theme across interventional studies in surgical handover (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref210">26</reflink>]a), and the area would benefit greatly from a core outcome set to standardise reporting of outcomes and increase comparability between studies (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref211">25</reflink>]c).</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-20">Conclusions</hd> <p>The best available evidence in this area has been critically reviewed and synthesised to develop a framework to assist educators in developing evidence-based surgical handover curricula. However, international guidance on surgical handover education remains limited, with most interventional studies reporting level II Kirkpatrick outcomes. Future studies should aim to achieve higher Kirkpatrick levels to demonstrate both effectiveness and sustainability of educational interventions, ensuring safer patient care.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-21">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Claire Mulhall, previous Research Programme Manager of RCSI SIM Centre, for the provision of administrative support.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-22">Author contributions</hd> <p>The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: Anastasija Simiceva, Jessica M Ryan, Walter Eppich, Marie Morris; data collection: Anastasija Simiceva, Jessica M Ryan; analysis and interpretation of results: Anastasija Simiceva, Jessica M Ryan, Walter Eppich, Marie Morris; draft manuscript preparation, revision and editing of manuscript: Anastasija Simiceva, Jessica M Ryan, Walter Eppich, Dara O Kavanagh, Deborah A McNamara, Marie Morris. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-23">Funding</hd> <p>Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. This work was supported by the Bon Secours Hospital in Dublin/Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland StAR MD Programme under grant agreement 22253A01, and the Medical Protection Society Foundation under grant agreement 23017A01.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-24">Data availability</hd> <p>No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-25">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188954066-26">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-27">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (XLSX 17 KB)</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file2 (PDF 809 KB)</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file3 (PDF 33 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0188954066-28">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0188954066-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abdellatif A, Bagian JP, Barajas ER. Communication during patient hand-overs: Patient safety solutions, volume 1, solution 3, May 2007. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2007; 33; 7: 439-442</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Medical Association. Safe handover: safe patients. Guidance on clinical handover for clinicians and managers. Canberra: AMA, 2006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bevilacqua LA, Simon J, Rutigliano D. Surgical boot camp for fourth-year medical students: Impact on objective skills and subjective confidence. Surgery (United States). 2020; 167; 2: 298-301. 10.1016/j.surg.2019.06.041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref34" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Britt RC, Ramirez DE, Anderson-Montoya BL, Scerbo MW. Resident handoff training: Initial evaluation of a novel method. Journal of Healthcare Quality. 2015; 37; 1: 75-80. 10.1097/01.Jhq.0000460124.98684.19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bywaters, E, Calvert, S, Eccles, S, et al. (2004) Safe handover: Safe patients</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref208" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chernikova O, Heitzmann N, Stadler M, Holzberger D, Seidel T, Fischer F. Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2020; 90; 4: 499-541. 10.3102/0034654320933544</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref45" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Committee on Acute Care Surgery, Canadian Association of General Surgeons. Clinical Practice Guideline: Dynamic Practice Guidelines for Emergency General Surgery. 2018. https://cags-accg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ACS-Handbook-CPG-Ch-1-Rounding-and-Handover.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Desmedt M, Ulenaers D, Grosemans J, Hellings J, Bergs J. Clinical handover and handoff in healthcare: a systematic review of systematic reviews. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2021; 33; 1: mzaa170. 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref22" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Eva, K. W. (2008) On the limits of systematicity. Wiley Online Library. pp. 852–853</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaffney S, Farnan JM, Hirsch K, McGinty M, Arora VM. The modified, multi-patient observed simulated handoff experience (M-OSHE): Assessment and feedback for entering residents on handoff performance. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2016; 31; 4: 438-441. 10.1007/s11606-016-3591-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> General Medical Council. Good medical practice. Domain 3 - Communication partnership and teamwork. 2019. https://<ulink href="http://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/good-medical-practice/domain-3---communication-partnership-and-teamwork">www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/good-medical-practice/domain-3---communication-partnership-and-teamwork</ulink>. Accessed 17 Aug 2023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gordon M, Hill E, Stojan JN, Daniel M. Educational interventions to improve handover in health care: An updated systematic review. Academic Medicine. 2018; 93; 8: 1234-1244. 10.1097/acm.0000000000002236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holt N, Crowe K, Lynagh D, Hutcheson Z. Is there a need for formal undergraduate patient handover training and could an educational workshop effectively provide this? A proof-of-concept study in a Scottish medical school. British Medical Journal Open. 2020; 10; 2: e034468. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034468</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horwitz LI, Moin T, Krumholz HM, Wang L, Bradley EH. Consequences of inadequate sign-out for patient care. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2008; 168; 16: 1755-1760. 10.1001/archinte.168.16.1755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irish Medical Council. Guide to Professional Conduct & Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners. 2024. https://<ulink href="http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/news-and-publications/publications/guide-to-professional-conduct-and-ethics-for-registered-medical-practitioners-2024.pdf">www.medicalcouncil.ie/news-and-publications/publications/guide-to-professional-conduct-and-ethics-for-registered-medical-practitioners-2024.pdf</ulink>. Accessed 2 Nov 2023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahlke R, Lee M, Eva KW. Critical reviews in health professions education research. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2023; 15; 2: 180-185. 10.4300/JGME-D-23-00154.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkpatrick, D, Kirkpatrick, J. (2006) Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler Publishers</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kulaylat AN, Saunders BD, Allen SR, Aarons CB, Hoffman RL. Evaluating the implementation of a medical student's handoff curriculum during the surgery clerkship. The Journal of Surgical Research. 2023; 282: 262-269. 10.1016/j.jss.2022.10.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S. Communication failures in the operating room: An observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Quality & Safety in Health Care. 2004; 13; 5: 330-334. 10.1136/qhc.13.5.330</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Clinical Effectiveness Committee. Communication (Clinical Handover) in Acute and Children's Hospital Services, National Clinical Guideline No. 11. 2015. Available from: https://assets.gov.ie/11589/774c4bb699144120946a091b481f2334.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Clinical Effectiveness Committee. Communication (Clinical Handover) in Acute and Children's Hospital Services, National Clinical Guideline No. 11. 2019. Available from: https://assets.gov.ie/11589/774c4bb699144120946a091b481f2334.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ottinger ME, Monaghan SF, Gregg SC. Trauma morning report is the ideal environment to teach and evaluate resident communication and sign-outs in the 80 hour work week. Injury. 2017; 48; 9: 2003-2009. 10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery. 2021; 88: 105906. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RCSE. (2007) Safe handover: Guidance from the working time directive working party. RCS London</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan JM, Devane D, Simiceva A. Surgical handover core outcome measures (SH-CORE): A protocol for the development of a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover. Trials. 2024; 25; 1: 373. 10.1186/s13063-024-08201-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan JM, McHugh F, Simiceva A, Eppich W, Kavanagh DO, McNamara DA. Daily handover in surgery: Systematic review and a novel taxonomy of interventions and outcomes. BJS Open. 2024; 8; 2: zrae011. 10.1093/bjsopen/zrae011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan JM, Simiceva A, Toale C, Eppich W, Kavanagh DO, McNamara DA. Assessing current handover practices in surgery: A survey of non-consultant hospital doctors in Ireland. The Surgeon. 2024; 22; 6: 338-343. 10.1016/j.surge.2024.04.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shea, B.J, Reeves, B. C, Wells, G, et al. (2017) AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Bmj, 358</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, C. J, Peterson, G, Beck, G, L. (2015) Handoff training for medical students: attitudes, knowledge, and sustainability of skills. Education in Medicine Journal, 7(2)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 371; 19: 1803-1812. 10.1056/NEJMsa1405556</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Telem DA, Buch KE, Ellis S, Coakley B, Divino CM. Integration of a formalized handoff system into the surgical curriculum: Resident perspectives and early results. Archives of Surgery. 2011; 146; 1: 89-93. 10.1001/archsurg.2010.294</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Anastasija Simiceva; Jessica M. Ryan; Walter Eppich; Dara O. Kavanagh; Deborah A. McNamara and Marie Morris</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref197"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref211"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1492547
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Developing an Educational Blueprint for Surgical Handover Curricula: A Critical Review of the Evidence
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anastasija+Simiceva%22">Anastasija Simiceva</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jessica+M%2E+Ryan%22">Jessica M. Ryan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Walter+Eppich%22">Walter Eppich</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dara+O%2E+Kavanagh%22">Dara O. Kavanagh</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deborah+A%2E+McNamara%22">Deborah A. McNamara</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marie+Morris%22">Marie Morris</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Advances+in+Health+Sciences+Education%22"><i>Advances in Health Sciences Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 30(5):1693-1707.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Guidelines%22">Guidelines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surgery%22">Surgery</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Development%22">Curriculum Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+Students%22">Medical Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10459-025-10410-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1382-4996<br />1573-1677
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Currently no guidelines exist for the development of surgical handover educational curricula. This critical review synthesises the relevant literature to identify best approaches to handover education and develop an evidence-based framework for teaching and assessing surgical handover skills. Methods: The following resources were critically reviewed by two independent researchers to identify key educational components; (1) all published studies primarily utilising an educational intervention to improve surgical handover up to May 2023, (2) key international guidelines and (3) reviews of all handover interventions published within the last 10 years. Results: A total of eight comparative studies, two systematic reviews, and four handover guidelines were included. Findings were reported across eight domains; including educational setting, approach, format, content, resources used, assessment, student feedback, and follow-up training. A framework for developing surgical handover curricula was also reported. Conclusion: The reported educational framework or 'blueprint' aims to assist educators across multiple settings to develop evidence-based surgical handover curricula for undergraduate and postgraduate learners. Future studies need to achieve higher Kirkpatrick levels to demonstrate both effectiveness and sustainability of educational interventions, ensuring safer patient care.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1492547
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1492547
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10459-025-10410-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 1693
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Medical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Guidelines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surgery
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Developing an Educational Blueprint for Surgical Handover Curricula: A Critical Review of the Evidence
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anastasija Simiceva
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jessica M. Ryan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Walter Eppich
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dara O. Kavanagh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deborah A. McNamara
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marie Morris
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1382-4996
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1677
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 30
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Advances in Health Sciences Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1