Team Handovers Research Articles

The Impact of Intraoperative Anesthesiology Provider Handovers on Postoperative Complications After Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) Surgery.

The objective of this study is to assess the possible association between intraoperative anesthesia team handovers and increased 90-day major complications following HPB surgery. This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent HPB surgery. Anesthesiologist handover (AH) occurred when a complete transfer of care to a receiving anesthesiologist. total anesthesia team handovers (TH) occurred when both anesthesiologist and supervised provider transferred care. The primary outcome was 90-day major complications, defined as an ACCORDION score of ≥ 3. Ninety-day major complications occurred in 35 (21.6%) of TH and 96 (21.9%) of AH patients. With adjustment of other covariates, no significant association was found between AH (OR, 1.358, 95% CI, 0.935-1.973, p = 0.1079) or TH (OR, 1.157, 95% CI, 0.706-1.894, p = 0.5633) and 90-day major complications. In a high-volume HPB center, anesthesia team handovers were not associated with an increased risk of patients having a major complication within 90 days after HPB surgery.

Improving the Accuracy of the Gynaecology Handover Process: An Effective Quality Improvement Project at a University Hospital in the United Kingdom.

Objectives The objective of this study was to introduce a new system of handover in the gynaecology department and ensure its effectiveness with dynamic improvement measures. This was launched as a quality improvement project in a district general hospital in the United Kingdom. The primary aim was to start and consolidate a new system of a separate gynaecology handover in the presence of consultants, registrars (incoming and outgoing), senior house officers (incoming and outgoing) and gynaecology nurses. Design The strategy for consolidation included a daily quality review on the basis of a fixed proforma, identifying the obstacles faced, and improvising dynamic solutions. A new quality check proforma was introduced which took into account: (i) Presence of team members, (ii) Following of proper SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) format in the handover, (iii) Updating of patients awaiting surgeries with every detail on the list, (iv) Proper handing over of pending referrals, (v) Mention of sick patients with proper importance, and (vi) Proper handing over of new admissions. A pilot study was done to evaluate the baseline performance of the unit regarding the gynaecology team handover on the basis of the same proforma. The result of the baseline study was noted as the reference. Each day the team receiving the handover was interviewed for the next five months about the quality of each of the parameters on the predesigned proforma and the responses were noted. The answers were designed in binary form (Yes/No). These results were compiled at the end of each month. The result from each individual month was reviewed and the problems were identified and practical solutions were applied. These changes were noted and plotted graphically as a bar diagram. The monthly audit results were tabulated in an Excel sheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States). Results Pilot study results and final month results were compared with the help of the Mcnemar test and statistically significant improvement was noticed in seven out of eleven parameters. There was a steady and gradual improvement in the responses. The possible limitations of the study were also noted at the same time. Conclusion The quality improvement project was highly effective in improving the quality of handover and increased patient safety to a large extent.

A tool to assess the components of a safe and quality medical handover

Background: Robust medical handovers are paramount to ensure patient safety throughout the course of a hospital admission. Anecdotal evidence within our Australian tertiary hospital suggested that medical handovers were typically less structured when compared to allied health handovers. Medical handovers at our hospital had never been evaluated before, and the development of a questionnaire to assess the key components of a safe and quality handover was necessary. This tool would evaluate our medical handovers, and identify potential areas for improvement in both the tool, and medical handover practice. Methods: Based upon a literature search, and local and national guidelines of best practice, the tool was created around six key components of quality medical handovers—members involved in handover, environment and logistics, structure and content, management plans, patient-related and documentation. The tool was developed to audit the after-hours team handover at our 600-bed tertiary hospital. The tool was trialled at 20 medical handovers for our after-hours team, results were captured on REDCap, and data analyzed. Results: The tool was useful in assessing a wide range of key medical handover components and highlighting areas for improvement within our medical handovers. Through this trial, limitations were discovered in the tool that can be incorporated into future revisions of the tool. Conclusion: Overall, this study provided valuable insight into medical handovers by identifying current clinical practice and highlighting areas for improvement. The broader utility of this tool is the ability of other health services to evaluate their own medical handover, or serve as a starting point to develop their own audit tool.

275 Barriers for Ward Staff to Cardiac Arrest Team Handover – A Prospective Clinical Study

275 Barriers for Ward Staff to Cardiac Arrest Team Handover – A Prospective Clinical Study

Implementing the IMIST-AMBO tool for paramedic to trauma team handovers: a video review analysis

Patient handover betweenparamedics and the trauma team is vulnerable to communication errors that may adversely affect patient care. This study assesses the feasibility of a handover tool, IMIST-AMBO (acronym of categories), implementation in the trauma bay and evaluates the degree to which it improves handover metrics. This is a prospective observational cohort study conducted at Canada's largest level-one trauma center. Feasibility of the tool implementation and improvement in handover metrics were assessed. Strategies for implementation included distribution of an educational video and posters, and point-of-care reminders in the trauma bay. Two reviewers independently assessed video recordings of handovers to evaluate handover metrics. Findings were compared to data obtained during a knowledge gap analysis conducted prior to the initiation of this study at the same institution. Over 13weeks (August to November 2020), 140 videos were recorded, of which 80 used the IMIST-AMBO tool (compliance of 57%). Paramedic adherence to the handover structure occurred in 70.4% of cases, with greater adherence to the IMIST (82.2%) compared to the AMBO (47.1%) section. The mean (± standard deviation) handover duration was shorter (1min:58s ± 0:44s during implementation vs. 2min:47s ± 1:14s pre-implementation, [p < 0.001]). Frequency of parallel conversations and informal handovers improved (61% to 30% and 65% to 13%, [p < 0.001], respectively). Interruptions during the handover decreased from 3.05 (± 1.95) to 1.5 (± 1.7), p < 0.001. The tool was received favorably among study participants. The IMIST-AMBO tool reduced the frequency of interruptions, parallel conversations, and informal handovers during paramedic-trauma team handovers at our institution. The quality and amount of information communicated per handover improved, all with a decrease in handover duration. The IMIST-AMBO tool may be applied to other trauma centers across Canada, or more broadly on an international scale.

Association between physician continuity of care and patient outcomes in clinical teaching units: a cohort analysis.

Hospital-based clinical teaching units (CTUs) are supervised by rotating attending physicians. Physician hand-offs in other contexts have been associated with worse patient outcomes, presumably through communication gaps. We aimed to determine the association between attending physician hand-offs on CTUs and patient outcomes including escalation of care, readmission and mortality. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre cohort study using data from 3 tertiary care hospitals in Calgary between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2017. We included hospital admissions in the top 10 case-mix groups. Our exposure variable was the number of attending physicians seen by a patient. Outcome measures were admission to intensive care unit (ICU); inpatient 7- and 30-day mortality; and 7- and 30-day readmission rate. We used multivariable regression statistical models adjusted for patient age, sex, length of stay, Charlson Comorbidity Index, case-mix groups, senior resident presence, team handovers and team transfers. Our cohort included 4324 unique patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of admission to ICU, inpatient 7- and 30-day mortality, and 7- and 30-day readmission rates among 1 or 2 physicians. However, we noted a significant increase in 30-day readmission rate (IRR 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.78) in patients who had 3 or more attending physicians compared with those who had 1 attending physician. We found that 2 or more physician hand-offs on CTUs had a modestly greater association with patient readmission at 30 days. More research is needed to explore this finding and to evaluate associated patient and resource outcomes with physician hand-offs.

Clinical handover communication at maternity shift changes and women's safety in Banjul, the Gambia: a mixed-methods study

BackgroundClinical handover is a vital communication process for patient safety; transferring patient responsibility between healthcare professionals (HCPs). Exploring handover processes in maternity care is fundamental for service quality, addressing continuity of care and maternal mortality.MethodsThis mixed-methods study was conducted in all three maternity hospitals in Banjul, The Gambia. Shift-to-shift maternity handovers were observed and compared against a standard investigating content and environment. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with doctors, midwives and nurses explored handover experience.ResultsOne hundred ten nurse/midwife shift-to-shift handovers were observed across all shift times and maternity wards; only 666 of 845 women (79%) were handed over. Doctors had no scheduled handover. Shift-leads alone gave/received handover, delayed [median 35 min, IQR 24–45] 82% of the time; 96% of handovers were not confidential and 29% were disrupted. Standardised guidelines and training were lacking.A median 6 of 28 topics [IQR 5–9] were communicated per woman. Information varied significantly by time, high-risk classification and location. For women in labour, 10 [IQR 8–14] items were handed-over, 8 [IQR 5–11] for women classed ‘high-risk’, 5 [IQR 4–7] for ante/postnatal women (p < 0.001); > 50% had no care management plan communicated.Twenty-one interviews and two focus groups were conducted. Facilitators and barriers to effective handover surrounding three health service factors emerged; health systems (e.g. absence of formalised handover training), organisation culture (e.g. absence of multidisciplinary team handover) and individual clinician factors (e.g. practical barriers such as transportation difficulties in getting to work).ConclusionMaternity handover was inconsistent, hindered by contextual barriers including lack of team communication and guidelines, delays, with some women omitted entirely. Findings alongside HCPs views demonstrate feasible opportunities for enhancing handover, thereby improving women's safety.

Improving paediatric flow in an UK Paediatric Assessment Unit

The 2010 Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) guidelines for acute paediatric services set standards for time to senior review for paediatric medical admissions in the UK as...

TP9.2.25No beds! Developing ambulatory surgical care in a District General Hospital

Abstract Aims Referrals to acute surgery are increasing by 10% a year with no increase in inpatient bed numbers. Our aims are to improve the patient experience with early review and provide early decision making preventing admission to hospital. In August 2019 we launched our ambulatory surgical service, in order to measure the impact we have reviewed every patient that has come through the service from its inception. Methods The service is manned by two dedicated surgical fellows based in an ambulatory unit with dedicated early morning USS slots available. To compare old with new we collated presentations into categories, for example ‘Right upper quadrant pain’ and compared the number of patients ‘ambulated’ to the average length of stay for patients with these presentations before ambulatory care. Results From August to October a total of 180 patients were ambulated via the new service. Using the comparison described this equated to approximately 423.05 ‘bed days’ saved the three-month initial period. Discharge times were spread throughout the day rather than ‘peaking’ with emergency team handover indicating an improved experience this has been backed up by qualitative reports from patients and families. Conclusion The introduction of the ambulatory service has improved the general surgical on-call experience at our hospital both for patients and clinicians alike, whilst decreasing surgical bed occupation. Utilising existing resources we have improved the patient experience, enabled quicker decision making and taken pressure away from the on-call.

A dramaturgical analysis of a paediatric team handover

Introduction: The paediatric team handover process is a crucial workplace practice and comprises the transfer of patient information from one shift to another involving medical professionals and students. A qualitative study was performed to analyse the feasibility, functionality, benefits and limitations of the dramaturgical approach when applied to examining a handover session. Methods: Data relating to one handover were collected and analysed from video and audio recordings, notes created by two independent observers and a de-identified copy of the handover sheet. Results: The dramaturgical constructs and subsequent findings allowed us to make informed inferences about the dynamics of the handover procedure. The directors/lead actors consisted of a consultant and a registrar. One consultant was transitory and the remaining 12 attendees were either major support, support or bit actors. The students (bit actors/audience) were included when a learning point was emphasised. The script was informal and improvised as the discussion emphasised certain facets of patient care or accentuated learning points. The staging involved the seating arrangement, a whiteboard, computer screen and ongoing data presentation. The performance suggested a handover of two halves: one emphasising learning and the other allocation of patient care responsibility. Conclusion: We concluded that the real-life drama occurring within a handover was feasibly analysed, with its functionality demonstrated, using the dramaturgical investigative system. The multifaceted recordings enabled researchers to review the ‘authentic’ handover system without censorship. These findings have implications for educational and organisational research.

Standardised handover process with checklist improves quality and safety of care in the postanaesthesia care unit: the Postanaesthesia Team Handover trial

BackgroundMiscommunication is a leading cause of preventable incidents in healthcare. A number of checklists have been created in an attempt to improve patient outcomes with only a small impact. However, the 2009 WHO Surgical Safety Checklist demonstrated benefits in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to determine whether use of a Postanaesthesia Team Handover (PATH) checklist would reduce hypoxaemic events in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). MethodsThis single-centre, prospective, pre-/post-implementation study was conducted between February 2019 and July 2020 in the PACU of Versailles Private Hospital, Paris, France. Pre-PATH implementation data were collected for 294 consecutive adult patients (≥18 yr old) admitted to the PACU and post-PATH implementation data were collected for 293 consecutive patients. The primary outcome was the rate of hypoxaemic events post-surgery during PACU stay. ResultsThe rates of hypoxaemic events were 4.1% (11/267 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 2.3–7.2%]) before the PATH checklist was introduced and 0.8% (2/266 [95% CI: 0.2–2.7%]) after. Patients in the PATH group were 5.6 times (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI: 1.3–33.6], P=0.041) less likely to have a hypoxaemic event than those in the control group. The handover process in the PATH checklist group also had significantly less interruptions (38.6% control vs 20.7% PATH; OR=2.5 [95% CI: 1.7–3.7]; P<0.0001). ConclusionsImplementation of the PATH checklist in adult patients post-surgery was associated with a reduction in the rate of hypoxaemic events in the PACU. These findings support standardisation of the handover process with checklists following anaesthesia and surgery. Clinical trial registrationNCT03972423.

Evaluation of efficiency and quality of the multi-disciplinary team handover process in a mother and baby inpatient setting

IntroductionAt Coombe Wood Mother and Baby unit (MBU) there are daily multi-disciplinary team (MDT) handover meetings and a weekly MDT ward round attended by 7-8 team members. There are concerns that the handover is too time consuming, utilising time which could be spent on other clinical duties, and concerns regarding the relevance of information that is handed over.ObjectivesTo perform a service evaluation to determine the efficiency and quality of MDT handover meetings in an MBU setting.MethodsData was collected from September to October 2020. A checklist was designed listing information felt to be relevant to handover and contained the following data points – ‘current situation’, ‘mental health’, ‘level of observations’, ‘risk’, ‘physical health’, ‘baby care’, ‘baby supervision levels’ and ‘tasks and responsibilities’. The start and stop times of each MDT handover meeting were noted and a record was made as to whether these topics were discussed.ResultsMean meeting duration was 32.2 minutes (range: 13 – 45 minutes) and amounted to 2.68 hours spent in MDT handover over a 5-day working week. This equates to 21.4 person-hours (based on 8 staff) a week. 928 data points were generated. 50.7% (468) data points were recorded and commonly omitted data points were – ‘tasks and responsibilities’, ‘risk’, ‘level of observations’ and ‘physical health’. On all occasions, ‘current situation’, ‘mental health’ and ‘baby care’ were handed over.ConclusionsThe results of this service evaluation provide compelling evidence for a wider improvement project. Involving MDT staff in designing interventions will make handover meetings more meaningful.

A transition program to adult health services for teenagers receiving long-term home mechanical ventilation: A longitudinal qualitative study.

Adolescents receiving long-term home mechanical ventilation (HMV) who survive into adulthood must transition to adult health care services. Lack of transition readiness is reported to result in poor health outcomes. The objective of this study is to explore longitudinally the pediatric-to-adult health care transition experience involving a transition program for adolescents receiving HMV including transition readiness, barriers, facilitators, and modifiable features. A prospective qualitative longitudinal interview study of adolescent and family caregiver dyads recruited through a pediatric-to-adult HMV transition program jointly established by two collaborating health centers: The Hospital for Sick Children and West Park Healthcare Centre in Toronto, Canada. Eligible dyads were interviewed at three time points: pretransition, transition, and 12-months posttransition. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using directed content analysis methods. Ventilator-assisted adolescents (VAAs) and caregiver participants perceived a lack of transition readiness in their ability to manage health communication and coordination across multiple adult providers. Transition facilitators included early transition discussion, opportunities for VAAs to speak directly with HMV providers during appointments, receipt of print informational materials regarding adult services, and a joint pediatric-adult team handover meeting. Modifiable transition barriers included lack of other specialist referrals, insufficient information about adult homecare service funding, and limited involvement of family doctors. Unresolved transition barriers resulted in perceptions of service fragmentation. Although the pediatric-to-adult HMV transition program conferred benefits service fragmentation was perceived. Transition barriers may be overcome through early planning and staged transition with all specialists, community providers, and the family and adolescent working in collaboration.

Impact of patient handover structure on neonatal perioperative safety.

ObjectiveTo compare the incidence, severity, preventability, and contributing factors of non-routine events - deviations from optimal care based on the clinical situation - associated with team-based, nurse-to-nurse, and mixed handovers in a large cohort of surgical neonates.Study DesignA prospective observational study and one-time cross-sectional provider survey were conducted at one urban academic children’s hospital. 130 non-cardiac surgical cases in 109 neonates who received pre- and post-operative NICU care.ResultsThe incidence of clinician-reported NREs was high (101/130 cases, 78%) but did not differ significantly across acuity-tailored neonatal handover practices. National Surgical Quality Improvement – Pediatric occurrences of major morbidity were significantly higher (p<0.001) in direct team handovers than indirect nursing or mixed handovers.ConclusionsNREs occur at a high rate and are of variable severity in neonatal perioperative care. NRE rates and contributory factors were homogenous across handover types. Surveyed clinicians recommend structured handovers for all patients at every transfer point regardless of acuity.

Clinical handover practices among healthcare practitioners in acute care services: A qualitative study.

To examine clinical handover practices in acute care services in Ireland. Objectives were to examine clinical handover practices between and within teams and between shifts, to identify resources and supports to enhance handover effectiveness and to identify barriers and facilitators of effective handover. Clinical handover is a high-risk activity, and ineffective handover practice constitutes a risk to patient safety. Evidence suggests that handover effectiveness is achieved through staff training and standardised handover protocols. The study design was qualitative-descriptive using inductive analysis. The study involved a series of focus group discussions and interviews among a sample of healthcare practitioners recruited from 12 urban and regional acute hospitals in Ireland. A total of 116 healthcare professionals took part in 28 interviews and 13 focus group discussions. We analysed the data using the directed content analysis method. Data collection generated rich qualitative data, yielding five categories from which two broad themes emerged: "policy and practice" and "handover effectiveness." The themes and their associated categories indicate that there is limited organisational-level policy and limited explicit training in clinical handover, that medical and nursing handovers are separate activities with somewhat different purposes and different modes of execution, and that several factors in the acute care setting, including location, timing and documentation, act as either barriers or enablers to handover effectiveness. The evidence in the current study suggests that clinical handover merits increased level of prominence in hospital policies or operating procedures. Medical and nursing handover practices represent distinct activities in their content and execution that may be related to cultural and organisational factors. Achieving multidisciplinary team handover requires a change in embedded traditional practices. Several aspects of the clinical handover activities of nursing and medical staff appear to diverge from best-practice evidence.

Investigating optimal handover practice: an evaluation of a new initiative from an acute medical setting

Aims To independently evaluate and assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of an innovative approach to the delivery of morning medical handover, in an acute medical emergency assessment unit (EAU). Methods A survey was conducted with junior and middle-grade doctors attending the handover (N=14). Three focus groups, with middle-grade doctors (n=5), junior doctors (n=11) and senior nurses (n=3), were conducted to gain further insights into the views and experiences of attendees. Interviews with two medical consultants and two directors of postgraduate medical education were conducted to gain insight into the strategic training and management perspective. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. The timeframe was May– August 2014. Results Quantitative survey data were analysed using SPSS, generating descriptive frequencies. 79% of respondents preferred to discuss safety incidents verbally, 79% found it helpful to learn about clinical guidelines and 50% regarded the process as too long on most days. Qualitative findings revealed that the handover was regarded as a crucial process for prioritising and managing patients and communicating critical information across a multidisciplinary team. Including a nursing perspective was consistently viewed as particularly beneficial, owing to nurses’ detailed overview of patients within the unit. Discussing audit results, care bundles and clinical reminders was viewed as well placed, owing to their concise nature. However, the danger of detracting from the clinical handover by incorporating education and a lack of a consistent clear focus was highlighted. Detailed patient presentations and theoretical discussions were considered to be more suitable in an alternative setting, potentially during rounds and bedside teaching. Suggestions of utilising an electronic system, separating the night team handover from an EAU morning meeting, and changing shift times were also discussed. Conclusions The foremost principle of a handover is to ensure that there is a robust clinical handover of continuous patient care from the outgoing to the incoming team. While there is the potential to augment this process with unique educational elements, it is essential that the delivery and content are carefully managed and structured in a manner that does not detract from the primary focus of a clinical handover and compromise clinical decision making. The handover model may benefit from having a more consistent time-bound structure, allowing the team to have a clear focus on managing and directing optimal patient care, whilst providing relevant educational aspects that improve patient safety and quality of care.

Investigating optimal handover practice: an evaluation of a new initiative from an acute medical setting.

Aims To independently evaluate and assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of an innovative approach to the delivery of morning medical handover, in an acute medical emergency assessment unit (EAU). Methods A survey was conducted with junior and middle-grade doctors attending the handover (N=14). Three focus groups, with middle-grade doctors (n=5), junior doctors (n=11) and senior nurses (n=3), were conducted to gain further insights into the views and experiences of attendees. Interviews with two medical consultants and two directors of postgraduate medical education were conducted to gain insight into the strategic training and management perspective. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. The timeframe was May– August 2014. Results Quantitative survey data were analysed using SPSS, generating descriptive frequencies. 79% of respondents preferred to discuss safety incidents verbally, 79% found it helpful to learn about clinical guidelines and 50% regarded the process as too long on most days. Qualitative findings revealed that the handover was regarded as a crucial process for prioritising and managing patients and communicating critical information across a multidisciplinary team. Including a nursing perspective was consistently viewed as particularly beneficial, owing to nurses’ detailed overview of patients within the unit. Discussing audit results, care bundles and clinical reminders was viewed as well placed, owing to their concise nature. However, the danger of detracting from the clinical handover by incorporating education and a lack of a consistent clear focus was highlighted. Detailed patient presentations and theoretical discussions were considered to be more suitable in an alternative setting, potentially during rounds and bedside teaching. Suggestions of utilising an electronic system, separating the night team handover from an EAU morning meeting, and changing shift times were also discussed. Conclusions The foremost principle of a handover is to ensure that there is a robust clinical handover of continuous patient care from the outgoing to the incoming team. While there is the potential to augment this process with unique educational elements, it is essential that the delivery and content are carefully managed and structured in a manner that does not detract from the primary focus of a clinical handover and compromise clinical decision making. The handover model may benefit from having a more consistent time-bound structure, allowing the team to have a clear focus on managing and directing optimal patient care, whilst providing relevant educational aspects that improve patient safety and quality of care.

Clinical handover in acute psychiatric and community mental health settings

This study collected an area-wide snapshot of current handover practice in psychiatric settings which included acute care units and community mental health centres. The study was conducted in two stages. Firstly, a questionnaire was sent to all clinical mental health staff within an area-wide health service regarding normal handover procedures and processes. The second part of the study used non-participant observers to evaluate actual handovers in inpatient and community settings. Of the 1125 surveys distributed in stage one, 380 (34%) were returned completed. Of the 40 handovers observed in stage two in which 637 patients were discussed, 40% included at least one consultant psychiatrist or registrar as a participant. Almost all the handovers were completed face-to-face in a specific location with a set time and duration. Eighty-six per cent of respondents reported that deteriorating patients were escalated for rapid response. The results of the survey and structured observations support the issues emerging from the literature from medical, surgical and clinical team handovers. Additionally, the issue of identifiers for deterioration of a psychiatric patient emerged as an area worthy of further investigation and incorporation into clinical handover education and training for psychiatric services.

Handover from paramedics: Observations and emergency department clinician perceptions

1. To evaluate emergency clinician attitudes towards handover from prehospital paramedics. 2. To determine the content and methods of paramedic handover delivery to emergency clinicians. Exploratory study comprising questionnaire of emergency clinicians and observation of paramedic-to-emergency clinician handover with associated survey at an adult tertiary referral hospital with approximately 12,000 ambulance arrivals of 37,000 annual attendances. Emergency staff found handover from paramedics on patient conditions relevant, especially for altered consciousness (94%, 95% CI 83.5-98.6), trauma (90%, 95% CI 82.0-98.4) and chest pain (88%, 95% CI 79.0-97.0), but less so for behavioural disturbance (67%, 95% CI 53.7-79.5). A total of 621 handovers from 311 ambulance arrivals were observed. Most arrivals (81%, 95% CI 76.4-85.4) were not preceded by prehospital communication. Paramedics handed over twice 91% of the time (95% CI 88.2-94.4). Doctors received direct paramedic handover for 12% (95% CI 8.0-15.1) of ambulance arrivals, including 19 team handovers, whereas triage nurses took 97% (95% CI 95.6-99.2) and attending nurses, 91% (95% CI 87.5-93.9). Fifty per cent (95% CI 42.7-57.3) of emergency clinicians referred to ambulance sheets. Handover information was perceived to be useful and accurate in more than 80% of instances. Verbal handover occurred before ambulance sheet completion for 78% (95% CI 73.5-82.7). Although there is satisfaction in paramedic handover, prehospital notification and emergency physician contact with paramedics is uncommon for low acuity patients, who constitute the majority of ambulance attendances and hospital admissions. Scope for improved direct doctor-paramedic communication exists.