# Examining the impact of validated handover protocols on treatment outcomes in polytrauma patients: a systematic review

## TL;DR

This review explores whether validated handover protocols improve treatment outcomes for polytrauma patients, finding mixed evidence and a need for better research.

## Contribution

The study identifies gaps in evidence and categorizes handover tools into standardized and customized types, suggesting areas for future research.

## Key findings

- Customized handover tools showed improved communication and reduced errors in some studies.
- Standardized tools improved documentation and professional satisfaction but lacked strong evidence from RCTs.
- Heterogeneity and lack of eligible trials limit definitive conclusions about handover tool effectiveness.

## Abstract

Effective patient handovers in healthcare settings are critical for ensuring patient safety and care quality. Handover tools have gained prominence as potential aids in improving these transitions. This systematic review seeks to answer the question if the use of validated handover protocols leads to better treatment outcomes in polytrauma patients compared to no use of validated handover protocols.

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science to identify relevant studies from inception of each database to June 15, 2022. We intended to include systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials comparing the use of validated handover tools to no use of such tools in adult polytrauma patients.

Despite the absence of systematic reviews and RCTs meeting our criteria, we included 26 initially excluded studies to glean insights into handover tool usage. This broader inclusion facilitated the identification of two categories of tools: standardized tools and customized tools. Among studies employing customized tools, positive outcomes were reported in various aspects, including enhanced information quality, improved staff communication, and reduced risks and treatment errors. In contrast, studies utilizing well-established standardized tools documented improvements in communication, documentation, and overall satisfaction among medical professionals, signaling a reduction in communication errors and lost information.

Heterogeneity of the studies and no trials meeting our eligibility criteria present challenges for conducting a traditional systematic review. In the lack of evidence from RCTs and systematic reviews, our analysis of the available studies sheds light on the complexities of assessing handover tools’ utility, especially in diverse clinical settings. It highlights the need for more standardized methodologies and further investigation into the effectiveness of custom-designed tools. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the role of handover tools in healthcare. While some studies suggest positive outcomes, further research is necessary to elucidate the design and implementation of these tools to enhance care and support healthcare professionals in their roles.