Scoping review highlights implementation strategies for transitional care in surgical patients, indicating gaps in capacity-building initiatives.
Aims To synthesise the evidence on implementation strategies used to implement transitional care interventions for adult surgical patients. Design Scoping review. Data Sources Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched in August 2023 and updated June 2025, followed by citation searches. Studies were screened independently by two researchers, and one extracted data, another verified its accuracy. Studies about transitional care interventions for adult surgical patients were coded according to the ‘Five classes of implementation strategies’ and the ‘Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations’ framework, to illuminate the review findings. Results Based on 27 studies included in the scoping review, staff education, changes to staffing and electronic systems, and change management techniques were frequently used implementation strategies. Implementation strategies were mostly used with patients undergoing colorectal and cardiac surgery in Asia and the United States. Scale‐up strategies and capacity‐building initiatives for people in charge of spearheading the change initiatives were less common. Conclusions To further the field, future research could focus on capacity‐building and scale‐up strategies, fidelity reporting, and financial implications of implementation in a wider range of surgical populations and settings. Work is needed to effectively implement surgical transitional care interventions in real‐world settings. Implication for the Profession and/or Patient Care Our findings provide strategies for hospital leaders to adopt when implementing transitional care interventions for surgical patients. Reporting Method Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) checklist. Patient or Public Contribution Determined review focus, interpreted findings, and contributed to manuscript. Review Registration The Open Science Framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tobiano et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: