Key result
PEWS-integrated electronic SBAR linked to ~62% fewer handover errors and reduced nursing adverse events.
Why the study?
The study was designed to evaluate changes in pediatric inpatient handover quality, efficiency, satisfaction, and safety-related indicators following the implementation of a pediatric early warning score-integrated electronic SBAR handover model.
Does a PEWS-integrated electronic SBAR handover model improve handover quality and safety in pediatric inpatients?
Observational (n=418)
No
Does a PEWS-integrated electronic SBAR handover model improve handover quality and safety in pediatric inpatients?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.84% vs 17.97%
p-value: p=<.01
Implementation of a PEWS-integrated electronic SBAR handover model improves handover quality, efficiency, and safety in pediatric inpatient settings.
May enhance pediatric handover metrics; leaves open need for randomized trials to confirm benefits and generalizability.
This study aimed to evaluate observed changes in pediatric inpatient handover quality, efficiency, satisfaction, and safety-related indicators after implementation of a pediatric early warning score-integrated electronic Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (SBAR) handover model. This single-center nonconcurrent controlled study was conducted in 3 general pediatric wards of a tertiary hospital in Jingzhou, China. The control period was January to March 2024 with routine SBAR handover, and the intervention period was June to August 2024 after development, electronic integration, and staff training. The same 47 pediatric nurses participated in both periods. The control period included 206 children and 384 handover observations; the intervention period included 212 children and 395 observations. Outcomes included bedside handover quality, nurse handover evaluation, family bedside handover perception, handover errors, handover efficiency, unplanned pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) transfer, and nursing adverse events. Because of the nonconcurrent design, findings were interpreted as observed between-period differences rather than direct causal effects. During the intervention period, bedside handover quality, nurse handover evaluation, and family bedside handover perception scores were higher than during the control period (93.66 ± 9.52 vs 83.93 ± 8.86; 58.21 ± 7.24 vs 52.51 ± 5.21; 63.23 ± 3.51 vs 55.59 ± 3.71; all P < .001). The handover error rate was lower (6.84% vs 17.97%, P < .01). Report-writing time and bedside handover time were shorter (2.11 ± 0.41 vs 4.51 ± 0.32 minutes and 3.94 ± 0.63 vs 5.97 ± 0.31 minutes; both P < .001). The unplanned PICU transfer rate was numerically lower (0.94% vs 3.88%), but this finding was borderline and not statistically significant by Fisher’s exact test ( P = .059). Nursing adverse events were less frequent during the intervention period (4.72% vs 11.17%, P = .015). Implementation of a pediatric early warning score-integrated electronic SBAR handover model was associated with better handover quality, higher nurse and family evaluations, improved efficiency, fewer handover errors, and fewer observed nursing adverse events. The lower unplanned PICU transfer rate should be interpreted cautiously. Multicenter prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Pediatric inpatients (n=418). Pediatric early warning score-integrated electronic SBAR handover model vs. Routine SBAR handover was evaluated on Handover error rate (p=<.01). Implementation of a PEWS-integrated electronic SBAR handover model was associated with a lower handover error rate (6.84% vs 17.97%, P<0.01) and fewer nursing adverse events.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: