Emergency handover of critical patients is used to describe the moment of union between prehospital and hospital health team. However, the literature shows several definitions leading to great heterogeneity. To study the emergency handover of critical patients between two critical-emergency care wards performed by emergency nurses worldwide and to identify the features of these processes. We conducted an integrative review in eleven databases published from 2010 to 2019. Quality criteria and PRISMA checklist were applied. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182335). A total of 22 studies included and the following factors were identified: variability vs standardization, identification, professionals' behavior, localization, environmental factors, patient participation, clinical records, education/training, responsability, and communication. The actual emergency handover occurs under conditions quite contrary to those recommended by experts so that it is neither safe nor effective, leading a serious problem for patient safety and quality care.

The emergency handover of critical patients is used to describe the moment when responsibility for the care of a patient is transferred from one critical patient care healthcare team to another, requiring the accurate delivery of information. However, the literature provides few validated assessment tools for the transfer of critical patients in urgent care and emergency settings. To identify the available evaluation tools that assess the handover of critical patients in urgent and emergency care settings in addition to evaluations of their psychometric properties, a systematic review was carried out using PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl, Web of Science (WoS), and PsycINFO, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The quality of the studies was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Finally, eight articles were identified, of which only three included validated tools for evaluating the handover of critical patients in emergency care. Content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency were the most studied psychometric properties. Three studies evaluated error and reliability, criterion validity, hypothesis testing, and sensitivity. None of them considered cross-cultural adaptation or the translation process. This systematic psychometric review shows the existing ambiguities in the handover of critically ill patients and the scarcity of validated evaluation tools. For all of these reasons, we consider it necessary to further investigate urgent care and emergency handover settings through the design and validation of an assessment tool.

Between one third and one half of the population that has suffered a stroke present with a neuropsychiatric disorder (NPD), which often goes underdiagnosed. To study the association between the presence of NPDs and coping strategies in stroke patients. Prospective, longitudinal and comparative study in a sample of patients with ischaemic stroke with and without the presence of NPDs. Both sociodemographic and clinical variables were collected. Neurological impairment (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale) and coping (Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced) were assessed at three and 12 months. The period studied was from 2013 to 2017. A total of 82 patients were analysed, with a mean age of 67.6 ± 10.4 years, 52.4% of whom were male. Of them, 14 with NPD and 36 without NPD answered the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced coping scale, and the remaining 32 were excluded because of aphasia/dysphasia. At three months, dimensions of active coping, social support, denial and behavioural disengagement were observed in the NPD group, and at 12 months, denial and behavioural disengagement persisted, and planning, self-distraction and self-incrimination dimensions appeared. Results show the need to motivate patients to seek more effective strategies, to identify problems when they arise, to consider them as surmountable and to inhibit impulsive or inappropriate responses, replacing them with emotional responses and appropriate behaviours.

Background/Objectives: Patient handover is the process by which the responsibility for care is transferred from one health care professional to another. Given the lack of validated scales to assess the handover of critically ill patients, our aim was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Instrumento de Evaluación de la Transferencia de Enfermos Críticos (IETEC) (English: Instrument for the Evaluation of Handovers in Critically Ill Patients). Methods: Psychometric analysis of the reliability and validity (construct, convergent, and discriminant) of the IETEC. This single-center study included professionals (nurses, physicians, and emergency medical technicians) involved in the care of the critically ill in urgent care and emergency situations. Results: We evaluated 147 handovers of critically ill patients. The KR-20 score was 0.87, indicting good internal consistency. Of the 147 handovers, 117 (79.6%) were classified as unsafe and 30 (20.4%) as safe. The model fit showed an acceptable construct validity (24 items and four factors: Identification, Communication, Quality, and Family). The Communication domain had the strongest correlation with the total scale (r = 0.876) while Family had the weakest (r = 0.706). The Communication and Family domains were closely correlated (r = 0.599). The IETEC reliably differentiated between safe and unsafe handovers, with a mean (SD) score of 26.3 (1.2) versus 19.0 (4.8), respectively. No significant differences (p = 0.521) in mean IETEC scores were observed between the physicians and nurses. Conclusions: These results show that the IETEC presents adequate psychometric properties and is, therefore, a valid, reliable tool to evaluate handovers in critically ill patients in urgent care and emergency settings.

Objectives: To design and construct an assessment tool for the handover of critical patients in the urgent care and emergency setting. Research methodology This metric and descriptive study comprised two phases in accordance with the Clinical practice guidelines for A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist. In the first phase, the identification and selection of items related to the handover of critical patients were performed by consensus of a group of experts. The second phase consisted of two stages. In the first stage, the items were selected by applying the e-Delphi technique across two assessment rounds and in the second stage, the items were subjected a pilot test in a real critical patient handover scenario. Professionals from different disciplines and work areas (hospital and prehospital) caring for critically ill patients in the urgency and emergency setting participated in each of the phases. Results: A total of 58 critical patient care, and urgent and emergency care professionals participated in the design and construction of the assessment tool. The initial list consisted of 14 categories and 57 items, which were reduced to 28 items grouped into five categories after the intervention of the participants. The content validity index (CVI) of the instrument was 0.966. Conclusions: This study describes an assessment tool developed in Spanish-language designed to assess the handover of critical patients in the urgent care and emergency setting. This tool has a high CVI, and is the only currently available tool that consider all of the dimensions and characteristics of the handover process. Implications for clinical practice The assessment tool developed in this study could enable critical care professionals in their clinical practice to work in a systematic way, universalizing the handover of critically ill patients in the urgent care and emergency setting through scientifically proven guidelines.