bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/813279

Impact of intensive care unit admission during handover on mortality: a propensity matched cohort study

Abstract

IntroductionHandover is a process of transferring information, responsibility and authority for providing care of critically ill patients from a departing intensivist to an oncoming intensivist. The effect of i admission during a medical handover on clinical outcomes is unknown. ObjectivesOur purpose was to evaluate the impact of ICU admission during a medical handover on clinical outcomes. MethodsPost hoc analysis of a cohort study addressing the effect of ICU admissions during the handover on outcomes. This retrospective, single center, propensity matched cohort study was conducted in a 41-bed open general ICU located in a private tertiary care hospital in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Based on time of ICU admission, patients were categorized into two cohorts: handover group (ICU admission between 6:30 am to 7:30 or 6:30 pm to 7:30 pm) or control group (admission between 7:31 am to 6:29 pm or 7:31 pm to 6:29 am). Patients in the handover group were propensity matched to patients in the control group at 1:2 ratio. Our primary outcome was hospital mortality. ResultsBetween June 1, 2013 and May 31, 2015, 6,650 adult patients were admitted to the ICU. Following exclusion of ineligible participants, 5,779 patients [389 (6.7%) in handover group and 5390 (93.3%) in control group] were eligible for propensity score matching, of whom 1,166 were successfully matched [389 (33.4%) handover group and 777 (66.6%) in control group]. Before matching, hospital mortality was 14.1% (55/389 patients) in handover group compared to 11.7% (628/5,390) in control group (p=0.142). After propensity-score matching, ICU admission during handover was not associated with increased risk of ICU (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.11; p=0.11) and hospital (OR, 1.23; 95%CI, 0.85 to 1.75; p=0.26) mortality. ICU and hospital length of stay did not differ between the groups. ConclusionIn this propensity-matched single center cohort study, ICU admission during medical handover did not affect clinical outcomes.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Midega, T. D., Filho, N. C. V. L., Nassar, A. P., Alencar, R. M., Neto, A. C., Ferraz, L. R., Correa, T. D.. 2019-10-21. Impact of intensive care unit admission during handover on mortality: a propensity matched cohort study. https://doi.org/10.1101/813279

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗