|Exam Name||:||Creating IBM Lotus Notes and Domino 8.5(R) Applications with Xpages and Advanced Techniques|
|Questions and Answers||:||164 Q & A|
|Updated On||:||February 15, 2019|
|PDF Download Mirror||:||Pass4sure LOT-986 Dump|
|Get Full Version||:||Pass4sure LOT-986 Full Version|
LOT-986 exam Dumps Source : Creating IBM Lotus Notes and Domino 8.5(R) Applications with Xpages and Advanced Techniques
Test Code : LOT-986
Test Name : Creating IBM Lotus Notes and Domino 8.5(R) Applications with Xpages and Advanced Techniques
Vendor Name : IBM
Q&A : 164 Real Questions
i've discovered a very good source modern day LOT-986 cloth.
I was 2 weeks short of my LOT-986 exam and my schooling was now not all finished as my LOT-986 books were given burnt in hearth incident at my location. All I idea at that point became to give up the choice of giving the paper as I didnt have any aid to put together from. Then I opted for killexams.com and that i although am in a nation of marvel that I cleared my LOT-986 exam. With the free demo of killexams.com, i was capable of preserve close things without troubles.
That turned into terrific! I got dumps modern-day LOT-986 exam.
Its concise answers helped me to carry out right marks noting all questions beneath the stipulated time in LOT-986. Being an IT master, my competencies with recognize are so forth want to be pinnacle. No longer withstanding, proceeding with a customaryemployment with huge duties, it have become no longer clean for me to take a solid planning. At that factor, i found out about the usually organized question and answer aide of killexams.com dumps.
Afraid of failing LOT-986 exam!
With using exceptional products of killexams.com, I had scored 92 percent marks in LOT-986 certification. i used to be looking for dependable test material to boom my information stage. Technical concepts and tough language of my certification changed into hard to understand consequently i used to be on the lookout for dependable and easy examine products. I had come to understand this website for the guidance of expert certification. It was not an easy job but simplest killexams.com has made this process smooth for me. i am feeling appropriate for my fulfillment and this platform is exceptional for me.
it's miles remarkable to have LOT-986 real exam questions.
due to LOT-986 certificate you got many chances for security experts improvement for your career. I desired to developmentmy vocation in records safety and desired to grow to be certified as a LOT-986. in that case I determined to take help from killexams.com and began my LOT-986 exam education thru LOT-986 exam cram. LOT-986 exam cram made LOT-986 certificatestudies easy to me and helped me to reap my desires effortlessly. Now im able to say without hesitation, without this website I by no means passed my LOT-986 exam in first strive.
I feel very confident by preparing LOT-986 actual test questions.
I cracked my LOT-986 exam on my first try with seventy two.Five% in just 2 days of education. Thank you killexams.com on your valuable questions. I did the exam with none worry. Looking ahead to smooth the LOT-986 exam along side your assist.
I feel very confident with LOT-986 question bank.
Attempted masses to clear my LOT-986 exam taking assist from the books. However the hard motives and toughinstance made things worse and that i skipped the check two instances. Ultimately, my fine pal recommended me the question& answer via way of killexams.com. And consider me, it labored so nicely! The exceptional contents were awesome to undergo and apprehend the subjects. I must with out issues cram it too and answered the questions in barely a hundred and 80 minutes time. Felt elated to skip well. Thank you, killexams.com dumps. Way to my lovely friend too.
just depend upon this LOT-986 actual question source.
I actually have lately handed the LOT-986 exam with this bundle. This is a incredible answer if you need a brief yet reliable training for LOT-986 exam. This is a expert degree, so count on that you nonetheless want to spend time playing with Q&A - practical enjoy is key. Yet, as a ways and exam simulations move, killexams.com is the winner. Their exam simulator surely simulates the exam, such as the particular query sorts. It does make things less complicated, and in my case, I consider it contributed to me getting a 100% marks! I could not trust my eyes! I knew I did nicely, however this changed into a surprise!!
got most LOT-986 Quiz in actual check that I prepared.
Due to consecutive failures in my LOT-986 exam, I was all devastated and thought of changing my field as I felt that this is not my cup of tea. But then someone told me to give one last try of the LOT-986 exam with killexams.com and that I wont be disappointed for sure. I thought about it and gave one last try. The last try with killexams.com for the LOT-986 exam went successful as this site didnt put all the efforts to make things work for me. It didnt let me change my field as I cleared the paper.
Get these Q&A and chillout!
I had taken the LOT-986 arrangement from the killexams.com as that was an average stage for the preparation which had eventually given the best level of the planning to urge the 92% scores inside the LOT-986 check exams. I really delighted in the system I got issues the things emptied the interesting technique and thru the support of the same; I had at long last got the thing out and about. It had made my arrangement a ton of simpler and with the support of the killexams.com I had been prepared to develop well inside the life.
So clean questions in LOT-986 exam! i used to be already sufficient organized.
Analyzing for the LOT-986 exam has been a difficult going. With so many puzzling topics to cowl, killexams.com prompted the self notion for passing the exam via taking me through center questions on the state of affairs. It paid off as I should skip the exam with a outstanding pass percent of 80 4%. A number of the questions came twisted, but the answers that matched from killexams.com helped me mark the right solutions.
When IBM bought Lotus for $three.5 billion in 1995, it regarded as although the venerable computing gigantic was basically to lock up the software trade and coast to unstoppable gains.
Eighteen years later, Lotus looks more like a millstone around IBM’s neck than a flywheel giving it additional speed.
according to a file in the Wall road Journal, in boost of IBM’s this autumn profits unlock nowadays, Lotus was the weakest performer in IBM’s software portfolio, shedding 6.4 % of its revenue volume in the first nine months of 2012.
It probably bills for roughly $1 billion in annual revenue, in accordance with estimates sourced via the WSJ, or one-sixth to 1-fifth of IBM’s overall utility enterprise.
paradoxically, Lotus once led the way towards nowadays’s hottest commercial enterprise applied sciences, the collaborative utility that helps teams talk and work together on tasks. one of the vital success reviews of that niche is Yammer, which Microsoft obtained closing 12 months for $1.2 billion. So, why is IBM sitting at the back of the pack as a substitute of leading from the entrance?
Lotus, which made the primary blockbuster “killer app” in the 1980s (Lotus 1-2-three, a phenomenally a hit spreadsheet program), went on to create Lotus Notes, a powerful groupware suite that got here out in the early Nineteen Nineties earlier than anybody had any theory what “groupware” become.
I used it significantly at a few corporations I worked with. in the beginning, it became mysterious and strong. Like most conclusion-users of Lotus Notes, I used it essentially as an email program. It had its quirks, nonetheless it worked. however there turned into a further dimension to Notes, a magnificent, programmable backend that permit you to create databases and workspaces for collaborative work, contact management, tips sharing, and communique.
these days, we’d call it a collaboration device or a company social-media tool, and it will be web-primarily based and requisites-compliant, like Yammer, Jive, and Huddle. within the absence of requisites, Notes’ engineers needed to invent every little thing themselves, making it a clever but proprietary solution.
however lengthy earlier than those web-based startups got here along, Notes was already losing its cool. The client software grew to become huge and bloated. It became high priced to put into effect and difficult to customise.
as the web gained popularity in the late Nineties, Lotus brought requirements, like POP3 and IMAP electronic mail interfaces. They didn’t accomplish that neatly with the requisites department, besides the fact that children, riding anybody who had to use a web mail client with a Lotus Notes mail server absolutely insane.
The upshot is that, simply as the cyber web grew to be universal, Lotus Notes became disturbing and obsolete.
sure, it became nonetheless powerful, however unlocking the vigor of Notes often required professional skills, giving rise to a sector of Notes consultants. No surprise that these consultants are having a tough time getting taken severely these days. The WSJ costs a Notes advisor who complains about his reception:
“i am going to a party, and that i shortly get insulted,” says Eugen Tarnow, a director of the consultancy Avalon company techniques, which sells the growing old email application to agencies. “they are saying, ‘Lotus Notes, that’s nevertheless around?’ It’s no enjoyable.”
lamentably, IBM’s engineers realized the value of requisites compliance too late and didn’t bake interoperability into Lotus Notes smartly adequate or early ample. So, as effective as Notes may well be, it became and is sick-prepared to work in these days’s API-wealthy cloud atmosphere.
IBM has extra modern social-media application, too, but most effective makes about $55 million per yr from that section of its enterprise. So the challenge for IBM is to proceed milking as lots income as it can from Lotus, while regularly shifting the branding and the income to newer, sexier lines of business. One example: Renaming its annual Lotus convention, Lotusphere, as “Connect2013.” Yeah, that’ll support.
We’ll be looking at to see if the profits document sheds any more mild on IBM’s efforts to show Notes around. however as for me, I’m now not protecting my breath.
picture credit score: Andrew Mason by way of photopin cc
IBM plans to make investments greater than $2 billion to develop its artificial intelligence footprint in big apple state, manhattan Governor Andrew Cuomo announced Feb. 7.
"ny has at all times been at the forefront of emerging industries, and this deepest sector investment to create a hub for artificial intelligence research will attract world-classification minds and power economic boom in the vicinity," Mr. Cuomo stated in a information release.
1. IBM will invest in AI efforts at SUNY Polytechnic Institute's campus in Albany, N.Y., and other IBM facilities in the state. IBM plans to deliver at least $30 million for AI research across the SUNY system, with SUNY matching as much as $25 million.
2. A key part of the $2 billion commitment is an AI hardware middle that IBM will open at the SUNY Polytechnic Institute's campus. The core will focal point on research, building and testing related to laptop chips utilized in AI.
3. IBM pointed out the company expects the AI hardware middle to appeal to new AI companies and federal researchers to the state, as well as foster economic development and create new jobs. The center will collaborate with a number of expertise businesses, together with Samsung and Tokyo Electron restricted.
"under the governor's leadership, our partnership with groups continues to foster analysis breakthroughs and financial boom whereas working to combat every little thing from ailments and melanoma to mitigating climate change," SUNY Chancellor Kristina Johnson, PhD, observed. "artificial intelligence is just one illustration of how SUNY is investing in new tech clusters to prepare our college students for the first rate-paying jobs of the next day."
extra articles on artificial intelligence:Northwell fitness adds AI for readmissions to its EMRNew algorithm from MIT might possibly be able to 'de-bias' AI: 3 notesDr. Eric Topol: 10 competencies AI purposes for clinicians, hospitals
© Copyright ASC COMMUNICATIONS 2019. drawn to LINKING to or REPRINTING this content? View our policies by way of clicking here.To obtain the latest medical institution and health equipment company and criminal news and evaluation from Becker's clinic evaluation, sign-up for the free Becker's health center assessment E-weekly by way of clicking right here.
newsIBM Modernizes Domino enterprise App Platform
IBM has modernized Domino, its enterprise app platform with roots within the Lotus Notes ecosystem that debuted in 1989.
once essentially prevalent because the server-side section of Lotus Notes, Domino is a multi-faceted platform that offers app building -- using the quick-software-construction method -- and extra.
In revamping the 29-yr-historical platform, IBM has enhanced cloud support, cellular application development, analytics and boosted the collaboration capabilities that had been a mainstay of Lotus Notes, which became IBM Notes in a 1995 acquisition.
Two of essentially the most high-quality modernizations within the new IBM Domino v10 are cell app construction capabilities and the embody of node.js.
The enhanced cellular development performance is available in the new IBM Domino cell Apps, which is being previewed as a beta for which developers can sign in. Furthering the IBM/Apple company relationship, the offering lets developers create Apple iPad enterprise apps. "IBM Domino additionally replicates facts between the server and local edition of your applications, so your team can also be productive even devoid of community connectivity," the business noted.
one other new feature is the capability for developers to name any leisure APIs from Domino purposes, allowing the ability, for examples, to add Google Maps functionality, pull in Salesforce consumer statistics or leverage IBM's Watson capabilities.
the new Domino v10 stems from a construction settlement IBM entered into with HCL applied sciences a yr ago.
David Ramel is the editor of visual Studio magazine.
Whilst it is very hard task to choose reliable exam questions / answers resources regarding review, reputation and validity because people get ripoff due to choosing incorrect service. Killexams. com make it certain to provide its clients far better to their resources with respect to exam dumps update and validity. Most of other peoples ripoff report complaint clients come to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams enjoyably and easily. We never compromise on our review, reputation and quality because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams client self confidence is important to all of us. Specially we manage killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com ripoff report complaint, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. If perhaps you see any bogus report posted by our competitor with the name killexams ripoff report complaint internet, killexams.com ripoff report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com complaint or something like this, just keep in mind that there are always bad people damaging reputation of good services due to their benefits. There are a large number of satisfied customers that pass their exams using killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams practice questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, our test questions and sample brain dumps, our exam simulator and you will definitely know that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.
P6040-017 braindumps | 132-S-816.1 test prep | 000-544 exam prep | 7391X brain dumps | 200-125 practice test | EE0-071 free pdf download | HP3-X11 VCE | 000-036 examcollection | A4070-603 pdf download | HP0-Y12 test prep | 000-416 study guide | 310-302 free pdf | HP0-S39 questions and answers | 000-736 mock exam | 000-200 practice questions | 920-551 real questions | EW0-200 study guide | 9L0-608 cheat sheets | HP3-C11 practice test | 000-797 free pdf |
Just study these LOT-986 Questions and study guide
We are doing incredible battle to give you actual Creating IBM Lotus Notes and Domino 8.5(R) Applications with Xpages and Advanced Techniques exam questions and answers, along clarifications. Each Q&A on killexams.com has been appeared by methods for IBM ensured specialists. They are colossally qualified and affirmed people, who have quite a long while of expert experience perceived with the IBM evaluations. They check the question as per actual test.
If you are examining out IBM LOT-986 Dumps containing real exam Questions and Answers for the Creating IBM Lotus Notes and Domino 8.5(R) Applications with Xpages and Advanced Techniques test prep? killexams.com is correct here to provide you one most updated and glorious database of LOT-986 Dumps that's http://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/LOT-986. we have got aggregative information of LOT-986 Dumps questions from real tests to provide you an opportunity to prepare and pass LOT-986 exam at the first attempt. killexams.com Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as below; WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for all exams on web site PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders additional than $69 DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders over $99 SEPSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for All Orders
It is basic to amass to the guide material if one needs toward save time. As you require clusters of time to look for updated and genuine examination material for taking the IT certification exam. If you find that at one place, what could be better than this? Its fair killexams.com that has what you require. You can save time and keep away from trouble if you buy Adobe IT accreditation from our site.
You should get the most updated IBM LOT-986 Braindumps with the correct answers, set up by killexams.com specialists, empowering the likelihood to understand finding out about their LOT-986 exam course in the best, you won't find LOT-986 consequences of such quality wherever in the market. Our IBM LOT-986 Practice Dumps are given to candidates at performing 100% in their exam. Our IBM LOT-986 exam dumps are latest in the market, enabling you to prepare for your LOT-986 exam in the right way.
If you are possessed with successfully Passing the IBM LOT-986 exam to start securing? killexams.com has driving edge made IBM exam tends to that will promise you pass this LOT-986 exam! killexams.com passes on you the correct, present and latest updated LOT-986 exam questions and available with 100% unlimited assurance. numerous associations that give LOT-986 mind dumps yet those are not genuine and latest ones. Course of action with killexams.com LOT-986 new inquiries is a most perfect way to deal with pass this accreditation exam in straightforward way.
We are generally particularly mindful that a vital issue in the IT business is that nonattendance of significant worth examination materials. Our exam prep material gives you that you should take a certification exam. Our IBM LOT-986 Exam will give you exam inquiries with certified answers that mirror the genuine exam. These inquiries and answers give you the experience of stepping through the veritable exam. High bore and motivator for the LOT-986 Exam. 100% certification to pass your IBM LOT-986 exam and get your IBM certification. We at killexams.com are set out to empower you to pass your LOT-986 exam with high scores. The chances of you fail to breeze through your LOT-986 test, after encountering our broad exam dumps are for all intents and purposes nothing.
killexams.com great LOT-986 exam test system is amazingly reassuring for our customers for the exam prep. Monstrously fundamental inquiries, focuses and definitions are included in brain dumps pdf. Social event the data in a single place is a honest to goodness help and Ass you prepare for the IT certification exam inside a short time period navigate. The LOT-986 exam offers key core interests. The killexams.com pass4sure dumps holds the basic inquiries or thoughts of the LOT-986 exam
At killexams.com, we give totally overviewed IBM LOT-986 planning resources the best to pass LOT-986 exam, and to get ensured by IBM. It is a best choice to accelerate your situation as a specialist in the Information Technology industry. We are satisfied with our reputation of helping people breeze through the LOT-986 test in their first endeavor. Our flourishing rates in the past two years have been totally awesome, due to our cheery customers as of now prepared to instigate their situations in the most optimized plan of attack. killexams.com is the principle choice among IT specialists, especially the ones planning to climb the movement levels speedier in their individual organizations. IBM is the business pioneer in information development, and getting certified by them is a guaranteed way to deal with win with IT positions. We empower you to do really that with our radiant IBM LOT-986 getting ready materials.
killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017: 60% Discount Coupon for all exams on website
PROF17: 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17: 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
DECSPECIAL: 10% Special Discount Coupon for All Orders
IBM LOT-986 is uncommon all around the world, and the business and programming courses of action gave by them are gotten a handle on by each one of the associations. They have helped in driving an expansive number of associations on the shot method for accomplishment. Extensive learning of IBM things are seen as a basic capacity, and the specialists ensured by them are astoundingly regraded in all organizations.
Killexams HP0-094 free pdf | Killexams HP0-823 questions and answers | Killexams DSST-HRM practice test | Killexams M8010-246 examcollection | Killexams 050-644 real questions | Killexams 3305 dump | Killexams AVA exam prep | Killexams 700-703 bootcamp | Killexams 000-917 exam questions | Killexams 1Z0-102 dumps | Killexams 000-606 Practice test | Killexams M2010-727 cheat sheets | Killexams 000-N12 real questions | Killexams 1Z0-495 test prep | Killexams 0G0-081 VCE | Killexams 1Z0-851 brain dumps | Killexams HPE2-K43 study guide | Killexams 000-026 cram | Killexams HP0-Y20 questions answers | Killexams HP0-921 free pdf |
Killexams 000-636 sample test | Killexams GE0-806 study guide | Killexams HP0-409 dump | Killexams 000-512 bootcamp | Killexams A2180-607 practice questions | Killexams 000-580 test prep | Killexams IQ0-100 real questions | Killexams HP2-T15 examcollection | Killexams 70-511-CSharp study guide | Killexams 000-705 cheat sheets | Killexams 190-756 exam prep | Killexams NSCA-CPT test prep | Killexams A2010-564 braindumps | Killexams 1Z0-055 study guide | Killexams 000-183 practice test | Killexams FSDEV free pdf | Killexams HP0-D08 test questions | Killexams 000-866 dumps questions | Killexams 050-ENVCSE01 test prep | Killexams C2070-448 exam prep |
The title of this post, of course, refers to the 80s anthem by Loverboy of (more or less) the same name. But how true is that saying? I'm really curious to know how people feel about their current employment. If you like your job, why? If not, why not? And are you planning to do anything about it? Do you think you'll ever find a job you truly love? And for those of you who already do love their jobs, how did you wind up with your job, and why exactly do you love it? Hmm... perhaps it's not such a simple question after all!
I would really love to hear people's thoughts on this topic - and not just in response to my specific questions. Anything related is cool. So please, take the poll & jump right in.
P.S. And if you don't mind telling us, what sort of job do you have, or what line of work are you in? Don't name any employers, of course - just a job description.
Update [2005-7-8 23:0:56 by DavidNYC]: This has been a truly fascinating thread - I encourage you to read all the way through it. There are comments from an extraordinary array of people: A bodybuilder, a tattoo artist, and a horse breeder to name a few of the more unusual jobs.
But just as importantly, this thread has reminded me of what I love most about Daily Kos: The diversity of backgrounds combined with a universal desire to learn and listen. I think the site is at its best when these traits are showcased, as they are in this thread tonight.
Effective communication is central to patient safety and quality. Inadequate communication consistently appears as a factor contributing to medical errors, across settings and practitioners. These span from an incident with a single patient1 to broader communication issues between physicians and nurses.2 In reviews of malpractice claims, communication problems were contributing factors in 26% to 31% of cases.3–5 The Joint Commission has reviewed data from 6,244 sentinel events occurring between 1995 and June 30, 2009.6 Communication problems have long been noted as a major contributing factor to these sentinel events. Sutcliffe et al7 conducted semistructured interviews with residents, who recalled 70 recent medical mishaps, and indicated that 91% contained communication failures.
Handoffs, the transfer of patient care from one health care provider to another, are known to be vulnerable to communication failures8 and have been called “remarkably haphazard.”9 As defined by the Joint Commission, handoff communication refers to a standardized process “in which information about patient/client/resident care is communicated in a consistent manner.”10
Retrospective reviews of malpractice claims in the ambulatory setting11 and emergency department12 showed that handoffs were a contributing factor in 20% and 24% of medical errors, respectively. When looking specifically at malpractice cases with communication breakdowns, 43% involved handoffs.13 A review of 146 surgical errors found that 41 (28%) involved handoffs.14 Of residents and fellows who reported caring for a patient with an adverse event, 15% indicated the reason for the mistake was a problem with handoffs.15
Numerous surveys document health care staff concern. In an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2008 survey, just over half (51%) of the 160,176 hospital staff respondents reported that “important patient care information is often lost during shift changes.”16 When 93 fourth-year medical students and 228 residents responded to a survey about patient safety, (70%) agreed that improved handoffs would reduce medical mishaps.17
Reduced resident duty hours were first introduced in New York State in 1989 and were mandated for all U.S. residency programs in 2003. Although reductions in duty hours may lead to less fatigue and improved well-being in residents, many have expressed concern about the resultant need for increased handoffs and reduced continuity of patient care.18 As a result of reduced hours, patients can be seen by three different physicians in the first 24 hours of their care.19 Seventy-six percent of 29 surgical residents in a New York study agreed that continuity of care had been negatively affected as a result of duty hours changes.20
Discontinuity in patient care, which can occur with cross-coverage and night float systems, has been found to lead to increased in-hospital complications,21 preventable adverse events,22 increased cost due to unnecessary tests being ordered by residents not familiar with the patient,19 and diagnostic test delays.21 In a study at one teaching hospital during a four-month period, the risk of a preventable adverse event was strongly associated (more than twice as likely) with coverage by a physician from another team.22
Night float systems, often implemented to ensure that residents do not exceed duty hours limits, have been noted to result in inadequate information transfer to the covering residents.23 Nurses have expressed concern over these changes. Fifty-one percent of the 67 nurses who responded to a survey about a new resident night float system agreed that “residents don’t know the patients as well as in the old system.”24
Other issues surrounding attending physicians’ and residents’ handoffs have been documented. Gandhi25 notes that inadequate handoffs can lead to diffused responsibility, which can be a major contributor to medical errors. In addition, Coiera26 found that health care communications are prone to interruptions, with a third of communication events (30.6%) interrupted.27 Many of these interruptions result in inefficiencies,28 and interruptions during handoffs are likely to lead to failures of working memory,29 which result in decreased recall accuracy.
In 2006, the average length of stay for all hospitalized patients was 4.8 days.30 Assuming that patient care transfers between covering residents and/or attending physicians occur 1 to 2 times per day, the average patient will be handed off 5 to 10 times per admission. Each of these handoffs represents a risk for inadequate communication, which could result in reduced patient safety and increased medical errors.
In response to concerns about inadequate health care handoffs, a number of national patient safety organizations have highlighted the importance of communication, including the Institute for Healthcare Communication31 and the National Quality Forum. In 2006, the Joint Commission created a new National Patient Safety Goal on handoffs.32 In 2009, the goal remains virtually unchanged, requiring the organization to implement “a standardized approach to hand-off communications, including an opportunity to ask and respond to questions.”33
As the preceding paragraphs suggest, there is abundant evidence of the negative consequences of poor communication and inadequate handoffs in health care. The purpose of the current study was to identify all English-language articles on resident and/or attending physicians’ handoffs in the United States, conduct a systematic review of research studies, perform a qualitative review of barriers and strategies mentioned across all articles, and identify features of structured handoffs that have been shown to be effective. This review was conducted in conjunction with the Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers National Initiative: Improving Patient Care Through GME. The National Initiative was a collaborative formed in 2007 that linked residency programs in 19 teaching hospitals across the United States in efforts to integrate academics and quality through projects coordinated at a national level.Method National initiative work group
A work group of the National Initiative developed resources and wrote systematic reviews of the literature in support of the National Initiative's goals. We performed this study as one of a series of literature reviews initiated by that group. The methodology that we employed included regular, substantive discussions about manuscript concept and design, such as key questions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and search strategies. There were critical interchanges among us about all important aspects of each systematic review written by this group, including those for this report, and we reached consensus on how to treat each systematic review. The specific subject, appropriate technique, and final presentation of this systematic review are the product of a progressive, iterative, and qualitative process of refinement.Literature search
We conducted a thorough and systematic literature search of English-language articles published on handoffs from 1987 to June 4, 2008 using Ovid Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, and Christiana Care Full Text Journals@Ovid, followed by reference section review. The search terms used were hand-off$, handoff$, signout$, sign out$, sign-out$, handover$, hand-over$, signover$, and sign-over$. A total of 2,590 articles were identified. All titles were reviewed for possible inclusion, and 401 articles were obtained for further review (Figure 1). Reference sections of all 401 articles were reviewed for additional articles.Inclusion criteria
Articles meeting the following criteria were eligible for review of barriers and strategies: English language, indexed in PubMed, published between 1987 and June 4, 2008, focused on health care handoffs in the United States, and including information about either resident or attending physicians’ handoffs. Articles included in the systematic review had one of the following study designs: randomized controlled trial; nonrandomized trial, with control or comparison group; single-group pre- and posttest, cohort study; single-group cross-sectional research; single-group posttest only, or qualitative research.
Trained reviewers (J.L. and L.R.) deemed that 46 articles met inclusion criteria for the initial review of barriers and strategies. Using an iterative process, an abstraction form was developed to confirm eligibility for full review, assess article characteristics, and extract data relevant to the study questions. This iterative process started with an initial form, which was used by two reviewers (J.L. and L.R.) to independently abstract data from four articles. The reviewers then met to discuss the abstraction form for inclusion of all relevant data. A second, more detailed form was then created for abstraction. Reviewers (J.L. and J.M.) independently abstracted all data. Most abstraction disagreements were minor, and all disagreements were quickly resolved during discussion, when a consensus was reached on the abstracted data.Quality scoring system
Downs and Black34 created a valid and reliable checklist designed to assess both experimental and observational studies. Two systematic reviews35,36 of published systems (scales and checklists) designed to assess study quality have ranked the scale developed by Downs and Black as one of the best. Both of these systematic reviews went on to suggest that some modifications might be useful, depending on the specific topic and study designs. Therefore, five of us (L.R., J.L., J.M., J.J., J.S.P.) developed a quality scoring form based on this approach, using four of the original items and eight modified items, which yielded scores ranging from 1 to 16, with 16 being the highest possible score (see Chart 1). This quality scoring form contained two items related to study type and sample size, five items related to reporting, and five items related to internal validity.
If a study included multiple assessment formats, such as interviews and a questionnaire, that resulted in different sample sizes, the largest sample was used as the sample size in the quality scoring form. There was no way to determine the number of independent study participants for each assessment method. Thus, to avoid counting the same study participant multiple times, we credited the study with the largest reported sample only.
Quality scores were independently obtained from reviewer pairs (L.R. and J.L. or J.J.) for each study. The interrater reliability was assessed for all identified research studies (n = 18). Overall agreement was 97.7%, and Cohen's kappa for agreement between the two reviewers was r = 0.96, P < .001. All differences were resolved through discussion to yield a final quality score for each study.Qualitative analysis of barriers and strategies
Conventional content analysis is a type of qualitative research used when there is limited or no existing theory on the phenomenon of interest.37 This analysis involves an iterative process that allows themes to arise from data. Researchers immerse themselves in the content and allow categories to emerge.37
All barriers and strategies mentioned in the reviewed articles were identified and listed in phrase format in two continuous lists, one for strategies and another for barriers. Reviewers (J.L. and L.R.) met to compare lists and, through discussion, agreed on final comprehensive lists. Through an inductive iterative process, category labels were created and all phrases were moved to a category or subcategory. The final lists were reviewed by J.M. for coherence and consistency.Results
Forty-six articles describing resident and/or attending physicians’ handoffs were identified. Thirty-three (71.7%) were published between 2005 and 2008 (Figure 2). Content analysis yielded 91 barriers in eight major categories and 140 strategies in seven major categories (Table 1).
Twenty-two articles presented anecdotal data,38–58 one of which had a physician handoffs case example and nursing handoffs research59; three provided circumscribed reviews,60–62 and three were editorials.63–65 The remaining 18 articles reported research on handoffs and were analyzed in depth (see the Appendix).66–83 Only one80 research study did not involve residents or have a graduate medical education focus. Quality assessment scores for the research studies ranged from 1 to 13 (possible range 1–16). Six studies obtained scores of 8 or less, eight had scores between 8.5 and 11.5, and four achieved quality scores of 12 to 13.
Only 6 of 18 (33.3%) research studies identified effective handoff features.66,67,69,71,77,78 In studies comparing computerized handoff systems with other methods, such as personal handwritten notes, the computerized or electronic system performed better. Residents were more likely to have all patients on their list,67 to report that they received all important information,78 to have increased satisfaction with the handoff system,67 to spend less time in prerounding and rounding activities,67 and to self-report decreased adverse events related to handoffs.77 Others have noted that resident-maintained lists in a database, such as a Microsoft Word file or Excel database, contain content and medication errors.69,71 However, interns using standardized, self-maintained sign-out cards reported fewer poor sign-outs and were more likely to record code status, patient age, and allergies.66Discussion
As stated earlier, we identified 46 articles describing residents’ and attending physicians’ handoffs in the United States. Eighteen were research studies (39.1%), only two of which were randomized controlled trials. The majority (71.7%) of articles were published in recent years, which is not surprising, given the Joint Commission's National Patient Safety Goal on handoffs issued in 2006. However, as demonstrated by our quality assessment scores (see the Appendix), there is a remarkable lack of high-quality outcomes studies. It is notable that one third of the reviewed research studies obtained quality scores at or below 8 (out of a possible 16), and only one study achieved a score of 13.
One purpose of the current study was to identify features of physicians’ handoffs that have been shown to be effective. Unfortunately, only 6 of the 18 (33.3%) research studies included measures of effectiveness. Of the three studies using computerized handoff systems, one was a stand-alone system,78 and the other two had some linkage with the hospital computer system.67,77 While these all provided a structured template, they also relied to varying degrees on residents to enter information, which introduces an opportunity for errors to occur.69,71 Most of the studies assessing effectiveness used self-reported data, with a few exceptions. Van Eaton and colleagues67 looked at the number of patients missed on resident rounds and showed a decrease from 5 to 2.5 patients/team/month (P = .0001) when using a computerized handoff system. Two other studies assessed errors on resident-maintained handoff forms when compared with the medical record69,71 (a surrogate for actual medical errors) and, not surprisingly, found errors on the resident lists.
Of note, two survey studies documented a lack of formal handoffs instruction during residency, with 60% to 74.4% (internal medicine72 and emergency medicine,73 respectively) reporting that they have no lectures or workshops on the topic. Although 72.3% of the 185 emergency medicine residency/fellowship program directors studied agreed that standardized handoffs would reduce medical errors,73 the majority did not have a uniform policy or procedure regarding handoffs. Only one of the studies reviewed here included the development, implementation, and assessment of a formal, structured handoffs curriculum.75 Horwitz and colleagues75 provide a comprehensive curricular template for others to use; however, they relied on postsession evaluations of perceived comfort and importance of handoffs. We commend their plan to conduct observation of handoff skills and look forward to their future publications.
Almost all of the research articles (17 of 18; 94%) were conducted within a residency program. Graduate medical education has taken the lead in conducting handoffs research, which is one demonstration of the value added to health care by medical education.Handoff barriers
We identified 91 barriers to effective handoffs that could be organized into eight major categories. Of barrier categories, communication issues were reported most frequently (30.8%), with general communication barriers ranging from not listening to inadequate communication. Because effective communication is an essential component of handoffs, this was an expected finding. However, hierarchy and social barriers constituted a less intuitive group. Here, we found things such as relational communication barriers and residents not being likely to hand off work to more senior residents, because of a rigid reliance on hierarchical norms that prohibit such behavior. Thus, adequately addressing handoff issues will require more than protocols, structure, and training. Understanding the complex social structures and hierarchies in which residents and attending physicians work, as well as the unwritten rules that govern the handoff of patient responsibilities, will be required.Handoff strategies
We identified 140 strategies that could be organized into seven major categories. Strategies for standardization were noted most frequently (44.3%), with technological solutions (16.4%), such as computerized handoff systems, next. Interestingly, whereas communication issues constituted approximately one third of barriers, improving communication skills was noted much less frequently (11.4%) as a strategy. Standardization would address some communication issues, but not all, such as language differences. Providing training or education (10%), evaluating the process (7.1%), and addressing environmental issues (5.7%), such as lighting and limiting interruptions and noise, make intuitive sense. However, a less obvious strategy was insuring the recognition that a transfer of responsibility/accountability (5.0%) had occurred.Limitations and strengths
Handoffs in a variety of environments were studied, which makes it difficult to use our findings to formulate barriers and strategies for use in every handoff situation. For example, some techniques may be better applied to inpatient medicine as opposed to the emergency department. In addition, we abstracted barriers and strategies from all sections of the articles studied, including the introduction. This may have resulted in overemphasis of some barriers or strategies, depending on the author's views and on repetition. However, we only counted the same barrier or strategy multiple times if the wording was significantly different in subsequent use and if the two instances could stand alone as different aspects of the same category.
Another potential limitation is that the barriers and strategies we identified (Table 1) represent the opinions of the authors of the reviewed studies. Further, we identified the barriers and strategies through a qualitative process. Although they seem intuitively relevant, they were not derived from research studies designed to identify handoff barriers and strategies.
The current study is limited by the Ovid search strategy used. Specifically, the selected search terms may not have included all relevant terms. We strengthened the possibility of identifying all articles that met inclusion criteria by reviewing the reference sections of all obtained articles. Although this strategy minimizes the risk of missing germane studies, it does not eliminate the possibility.
Publication bias refers to the possibility that high-quality studies with negative results may not have been published. Others have noted that many quality improvement (QI) projects are not published.84 In addition, it has been our observation that some QI projects are published in newsletters, with the authors never submitting them to peer-reviewed journals. Thus, there may be outcomes studies of handoffs that are not in the peer-reviewed literature. However, the explicit search strategy, clear inclusion criteria, and systematic process used to identify and evaluate articles strengthen the quality of this review.
Although our quality scoring system was based on a validated methodology developed to assess experimental and observational studies together, our system has not been validated across multiple settings and investigators. The relative weightings may require refinement, and there may prove to be additional relevant categories. The system did have a high internal reliability, and reviewers of various educational backgrounds and experience found it straightforward and easy to use. Further, the quality scoring system provides a reproducible template for the assessment of handoffs articles.Recommendations
Numerous authors have noted the dearth of research focused on handoffs.45,57,70,83,85,86 In addition, there are risks involved in implementing interventions without evidence supporting their effectiveness.87 Winters and colleagues87(p1,647) noted that “[n]ational efforts to improve patient safety should be supported by sufficiently strong evidence to warrant such a commitment of resources.”
Evidence-based practice is informed by high-quality research. Recent publication guidelines for patient safety and quality initiatives have established a framework for standardized reporting.88,89 We recommend that future handoffs studies use the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines.89 Many of the studies reviewed here would have been improved by doing so.
Others have noted that it may be unreasonable to expect patient safety and quality studies to follow the design rigors of randomized controlled trials.87 However, the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method provides a structured, rigorous method to synthesize data from other clinical study types with expert opinion to provide the best available guidelines.90 Unfortunately, the literature on handoffs identified here is not of sufficient quality and quantity to synthesize into evidence-based recommendations.
Although the Joint Commission is calling for structured handoffs, we identified very little evidence to support the use of any specific structure, protocol, or method. However, direct observation of handoffs in other settings (i.e., NASA mission control, nuclear power, railroad, and ambulance dispatch) with high consequences for error, yielded 21 common strategies,91 which could offer a starting point in the development of health care handoffs research. Our review of the U.S. physicians’ handoffs literature has led us to develop a list of research questions, organized by the content domains of knowledge, attitudes, skills, process outcomes, and clinical outcomes (see List 1).
Across the United States, hospitals are implementing structured handoff protocols in an effort to comply with Joint Commission requirements. High-quality outcomes studies that focus on systems factors, human performance, and the effectiveness of protocols and interventions are urgently needed. These studies should address the barriers and strategies identified here. In addition, handoffs in different disciplines are likely to have different requirements and issues. For instance, an emergency department handoff will need to have different content than one for inpatient medicine or pediatrics. Therefore, researchers should conduct discipline-specific handoff studies.
We call for rigorous outcomes studies designed to (1) assess the effectiveness of handoffs, (2) determine the elements of handoffs that lead to improved patient outcomes, and (3) identify the best implementation strategies. Finally, these studies should be reported using the SQUIRE guidelines. Without these studies, hospitals across the United States are destined to waste time, resources, and effort on flawed handoff practices.Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Ellen M. Justice, MLIS, AHIP, medical librarian of the Lewis B. Flinn Medical Library, Christiana Care Health System, for conducting literature searches; Dolores Ann Moran, medical library assistant II, and Janice Evans, medical library assistant II, for their assistance in locating articles; and Donald Riesenberg, MD, for feedback on the manuscript.References 1Chassin MR, Becher EC. The wrong patient. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:826–833. 2Donchin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, et al. A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:143–148. 3Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctor–patient relationship and malpractice: Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1365–1370. 4White AA, Wright SW, Blanco R, et al. Cause-and-effect analysis of risk management files to assess patient care in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:1035–1041. 5White AA, Pichert JW, Bledsoe SH, Irwin C, Entman SS. Cause and effect analysis of closed claims in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:1031–1038. 7Sutcliffe KM, Lewton E, Rosenthal MM. Communication failures: An insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med. 2004;79:186–194. 8Keyes C. Coordination of care provision: The role of the ‘handoff.’ Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12:519. 9Volpp KGM, Grande D. Residents’ suggestions for reducing errors in teaching hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:851–855. 11Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Thomas EJ, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: A study of closed malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:488–496. 12Kachalia A, Gandhi TK, Puopolo AL, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the emergency department: A study of closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49:196–205. 13Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Studdert DM, et al. Patterns of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:533–540. 14Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery. 2003;133:614–621. 15Jagsi R, Kitch BT, Weinstein DF, Campbell EG, Hutter M, Weissman JS. Residents report on adverse events and their causes. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2607–2613. 16Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture: 2008 Comparative Database Report. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/hospsurvey08. Accessed August 24, 2009. 17Sorokin R, Riggio JM, Hwang C. Attitudes about patient safety: A survey of physicians-in-training. Am J Med Qual. 2005;20:70–77. 18Fletcher KE, Parekh V, Halasyamani L, et al. Work hour rules and contributors to patient care mistakes: A focus group study with internal medicine residents. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:228–237. 19Fins JJ. Professional responsibility: A perspective on the Bell Commission reforms. Bull NY Acad Med. 1991;67:359–364. 20Barden CB, Specht MC, McCarter MD, Daly JM, Fahey TJ. Effects of limited work hours on surgical training. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195:531–538. 21Laine C, Goldman L, Soukup JR, Hayes JG. The impact of a regulation restricting medical house staff working hours on the quality of patient care. JAMA. 1993;269:374–378. 22Petersen LA, Brennan TA, O’Neil AC, Cook EF, Lee TH. Does housestaff discontinuity of care increase the risk for preventable adverse events? Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:866–872. 23Charap M. Reducing resident work hours: Unproven assumptions and unforeseen outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:814–815. 24Buff DD, Shabti R. The night float system of resident on call: What do the nurses think? J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:400–402. 25Gandhi TK. Fumbled handoffs: One dropped ball after another. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:352–358. 26Coiera E. When conversation is better than computation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:277–286. 27Coiera EW, Jayasuriya RA, Hardy J, Bannan A, Thorpe MEC. Communication loads on clinical staff in the emergency department. Med J Aust. 2002;176:415–418. 28Coiera E, Tombs V. Communication behaviors in a hospital setting: An observational study. BMJ. 1998;316:673–676. 29Parker J, Coiera E. Improving clinical communication: A view from psychology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:453–461. 30DeFrances CJ, Lucas CA, Buie VC, Golosinskiy A. 2006 National Hospital Discharge Survey. National Health Statistics Report. July 30, 2008. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr005.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2009. 34Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–384. 35West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011). AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2002. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat1.chapter.70996. Accessed August 24, 2009. 36Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment. 2003;7(27). Available at: http://www.ncchta.org/fullmono/mon727.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2009. 37Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–1288. 38Communication strategies for patient handoffs. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1503–1505. 39Handoff information should cover past, future. Healthc Risk Manag. 2005;27:94. 40Measure understanding during handoffs: A naval hospital uses an evaluation tool to determine whether information is understood. Brief Patient Saf. 2006:8–9. 41Patient handoff must be more than a formality. Healthc Risk Manag. 2005;27:93. 42Strategies for improving OR handoffs. OR Manager. 2005;21(8):9–10. 43What's wrong with this hand-off? Brief Patient Saf. 2006;7(1):9,12. 44Arora V, Johnson J. National patient safety goals. A model for building a standardized hand-off protocol. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32:646–655. 45Beach C, Croskerry P, Shapiro M. Profiles in patient safety: Emergency care transitions. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10:364–347. 46Chacko V, Varvarelis N, Kemp DG. eHand-offs: An IBM Lotus Domino application for ensuring patient safety and enhancing resident supervision in hand-off communications. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006:874. 47Dracup K, Morris PE. Passing the torch: The challenge of handoffs. Am J Crit Care. 2008;17:95–97. 48Frazer TS. “Doctor's notes”: A computerized method for managing inpatient care. Fam Med. 1988;20:223–224. 49Goldman L, Pantilat SZ, Winthrop F, Whitcomb WF. Passing the clinical baton: 6 principles to guide the hospitalists. Am J Med. 2001;111(9B):36S–39S. 50Kushniruk A, Karson T, Moore C, Kannry J. From prototype to production system: Lessons learned from the evolution of the SignOut System at Mount Sinai Medical Center. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003:381–385. 51Landucci D, Gipe BT. The art and science of the handoff: How hospitalists share data. Hospitalist. 1999;3:4. 52Luo J, Hales RE, Hilty D, Brennan C. Clinical computing: Electronic sign-out using a personal digital assistant. Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52:173–174. 53Mukherjee S. A precarious exchange. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1822–1824. 54Nemeth C, Nunnally M, O’Connor M, Cook R. Creating resilient IT: How the sign-out sheet shows clinicians make healthcare work. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006:584–588. 55Sarkar U, Carter JT, Omachi TA, et al. SynopSIS: Integrating physician sign-out with the electronic medical record. J Hosp Med. 2007;2:336–342. 56Sutker WL. The physician's role in patient safety: What's in it for me? Baylor Univ Med Cent Proc. 2008;21:9–14. 57Vidyarthi AR, Arora V, Schnipper JL, Wall SD, Wachter RM. Managing discontinuity in academic medical centers: Strategies for a safe and effective resident sign-out. J Hosp Med. 2006;1:257–266. 58Weinstock M. Transitioning care: H&HN′s ‘Saves Lives Now’ series profiles a better way to handle patient handoffs. Hosp Health Netw. 2005;79(6):27–28. 59Haig KM, Sutton S, Whittington J. SBAR: A shared mental model for improving communication between clinicians. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32:167–175. 60Arora VM, Johnson JK, Meltzer DO, Humphrey HJ. A theoretical framework and competency-based approach to improving handoffs. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:11–14. 61Singer JI, Dean J. Emergency physician intershift handovers: An analysis of our transitional care. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2006;22:751–754. 62Solet DJ, Norvell JM, Rutan GH, Frankel RM. Lost in translation: Challenges and opportunities in physician-to-physician communication during patient handoffs. Acad Med. 2005;80:1094–1099. 63Guise JM, Lowe NK. Do you speak SBAR? J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2006;35:313–314. 64Jauhar S. Patient handoffs, or walking along a narrow mountain ledge. Medscape J Med. 2008;10(3):57. 65Philibert I, Leach DC. Re-framing continuity of care for this century. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:394–396. 66Lee LH, Levine JA, Schultz HJ. Utility of a standardized sign-out card for new medical interns. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:753–755. 67Van Eaton EG, Horvath KD, Lober WB, Rossini AH, Pellegrini CA. A randomized, controlled trial evaluating the impact of a computerized rounding and sign-out system on continuity of care and resident work hours. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:538–545. 68Lofgren RP, Gottlieb D, Williams RA, Rich EC. Post-call transfer of resident responsibility: Its effect on patient care. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5:501–505. 69Arora V, Kao J, Lovinger D, Seiden SC, Meltzer D. Medication discrepancies in resident sign-outs and their potential to harm. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1751–1755. 70Borowitz SM, Waggoner-Fountain LA, Bass EJ, Sledd RM. Adequacy of information transferred at resident sign-out (inhospital handover of care): A prospective survey. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:6–10. 71Frank G, Lawler LA, Jackson AA, Steinberg TH, Lawless ST. Resident miscommunication: Accuracy of the resident sign-out sheet. J Healthc Qual. 2005;27(2):(Web Exclusive):W2-10–W2-14. Available at: http://www.nahq.org/journal/online/pdf/webex0305.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2009. 72Horwitz LI, Krumholz HM, Green ML, Huot SJ. Transfers of patient care between house staff on internal medicine wards: A national survey. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1173–1177. 73Sinha M, Shriki J, Salness R, Blackburn PA. Need for standardized sign-out in the emergency department: A survey of emergency medicine residency and pediatric emergency medicine fellowship program directors. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14:192–196. 74Frank G, Lawless ST, Steinberg TH. Improving physician communication through an automated, integrated sign-out system. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2005;19(4):68–74. 75Horwitz LI, Moin T, Green ML. Development and implementation of an oral sign-out skills curriculum. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1470–1474. 76Kannry J, Moore C. MediSign: Using a Web-based SignOut System to improve provider identification. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:550–554. 77Petersen LA, Orav EJ, Teich JM, O’Neil AC, Brennan TA. Using a computerized sign-out program to improve continuity of inpatient care and prevent adverse events. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998;24:77–87. 78Ram R, Block B. Signing out patients for off-hours coverage: Comparison of manual and computer-aided methods. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1992:114–118. 79Van Eaton EG, Horvath KD, Lober WB, Pellegrini CA. Organizing the transfer of patient care information: The development of a computerized resident sign-out system. Surgery. 2004;136:5–13. 80Apker J, Mallak LA, Gibson SC. Communicating in the “gray zone”: Perceptions about emergency physician–hospitalist handoffs and patient safety. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14:884–894. 81Arora V, Johnson J, Lovinger D, Humphrey HJ, Meltzer DO. Communication failures in patient sign-out and suggestions for improvement: A critical incident analysis. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:401–407. 82Kellogg KC, Breen E, Ferzoco SJ, Zinner MJ, Ashley SW. Resistance to change in surgical residency: An ethnographic study of work hours reform. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202:630–636. 83Laxmisan A, Hakimzada F, Sayan OR, Green RA, Zhang J, Patel VL. The multitasking clinician: Decision-making and cognitive demand during and after team handoffs in emergency care. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76:801–811. 84Davidoff F, Batalden P. Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication guidelines: The beginning of a consensus project. Qua Saf Health Care. 2005;14:319–325. 85Hamilton P, Gemeinhardt G, Mancuso P, Sahlin CL, Ivy L. SBAR and nurse–physician communication: Pilot testing an educational intervention. Nurs Adm Q. 2006;30:295–299. 86Pope BB, Rodzen L, Spross G. Raising the SBAR: How better communication improves patient outcomes. Nursing. 2008;38(3):41–43. 87Winters BD, Pham J, Pronovost PJ. Rapid response teams—Walk, don’t run. JAMA. 2006;296:1645–1647. 88Stevens DP. Why new guidelines for reporting improvement research? And why now? Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:314. 90Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND; 2001. 91Patterson ES, Roth EM, Woods DD, Chow R, Gomes JO. Handoff strategies in settings with high consequences for failure: Lessons for health care operations. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16:125–132. © 2009 Association of American Medical Colleges Source
Academic Medicine84(12):1775-1787, December 2009.Related Videos
Data is temporarily unavailable. Please try again soon.
3COM [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
AccessData [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACFE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Acme-Packet [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACSM [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Admission-Tests [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
ADOBE [93 Certification Exam(s) ]
AFP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
AICPA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
AIIM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alcatel-Lucent [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alfresco [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Altiris [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Amazon [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
American-College [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Android [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
APA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
APICS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Apple [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
AppSense [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APTUSC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Arizona-Education [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ARM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Aruba [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASIS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASQ [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASTQB [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Autodesk [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Avaya [96 Certification Exam(s) ]
AXELOS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Axis [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Banking [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
BEA [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
BICSI [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlackBerry [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlueCoat [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Brocade [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Objects [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Tests [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CA-Technologies [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certification-Board [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certiport [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
CheckPoint [41 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIPS [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cisco [318 Certification Exam(s) ]
Citrix [48 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIW [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cloudera [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cognos [19 Certification Exam(s) ]
College-Board [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
CompTIA [76 Certification Exam(s) ]
ComputerAssociates [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Consultant [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Counselor [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CPP-Institue [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
CPP-Institute [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CSP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNP [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Dassault [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
DELL [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
DMI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
DRI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECCouncil [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECDL [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
EMC [129 Certification Exam(s) ]
Enterasys [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Ericsson [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
ESPA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Esri [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExamExpress [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Exin [40 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExtremeNetworks [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
F5-Networks [20 Certification Exam(s) ]
FCTC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Filemaker [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Financial [36 Certification Exam(s) ]
Food [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fortinet [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Foundry [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
FSMTB [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fujitsu [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
GAQM [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Genesys [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GIAC [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Google [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GuidanceSoftware [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
H3C [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
HDI [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Healthcare [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
HIPAA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hitachi [30 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hortonworks [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hospitality [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
HP [750 Certification Exam(s) ]
HR [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
HRCI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Huawei [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hyperion [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAAP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAHCSMM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBM [1532 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBQH [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICDL [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
IEEE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IELTS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IFPUG [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIBA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IISFA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Intel [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IQN [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IRS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISACA [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISC2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISEB [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
Isilon [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISM [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
iSQI [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
ITEC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Juniper [64 Certification Exam(s) ]
LEED [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Legato [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Liferay [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Logical-Operations [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Lotus [66 Certification Exam(s) ]
LPI [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
LSI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Magento [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Maintenance [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
McAfee [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
McData [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Medical [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
Microsoft [374 Certification Exam(s) ]
Mile2 [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Military [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Misc [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Motorola [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
mySQL [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
NBSTSA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCEES [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCLEX [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Network-General [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
NetworkAppliance [39 Certification Exam(s) ]
NI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NIELIT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nokia [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nortel [130 Certification Exam(s) ]
Novell [37 Certification Exam(s) ]
OMG [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Oracle [279 Certification Exam(s) ]
P&C [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Palo-Alto [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PARCC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PayPal [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Pegasystems [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
PEOPLECERT [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PMI [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Polycom [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
PostgreSQL-CE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Prince2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
PRMIA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PsychCorp [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PTCB [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
QAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
QlikView [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Quality-Assurance [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
RACC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Real-Estate [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
RedHat [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RES [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Riverbed [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RSA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sair [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Salesforce [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
SANS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAP [98 Certification Exam(s) ]
SASInstitute [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCO [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCP [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
SDI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
See-Beyond [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Siemens [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Snia [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
SOA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Social-Work-Board [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
SpringSource [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUN [63 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUSE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sybase [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
Symantec [134 Certification Exam(s) ]
Teacher-Certification [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
The-Open-Group [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
TIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Tibco [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trainers [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trend [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
TruSecure [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
USMLE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
VCE [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veeam [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veritas [33 Certification Exam(s) ]
Vmware [58 Certification Exam(s) ]
Wonderlic [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Worldatwork [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
XML-Master [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Zend [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Dropmark : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/11740069
Wordpress : http://wp.me/p7SJ6L-1ps
Dropmark-Text : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/12306787
Issu : https://issuu.com/trutrainers/docs/lot-986
Blogspot : http://killexamsbraindump.blogspot.com/2017/11/looking-for-lot-986-exam-dumps-that.html
RSS Feed : http://feeds.feedburner.com/WhereCanIGetHelpToPassLot-986Exam
Box.net : https://app.box.com/s/j2xhiiseg3lbuu8vafwebqiymke536kq
zoho.com : https://docs.zoho.com/file/62c5063d2be48003245c5b0ffd51ca1ebe1aa