BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Retrospective Study
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Mar 27, 2026; 18(3): 115349
Published online Mar 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v18.i3.115349
Table 1 Level 1 and level 2 indicators and weights of the safety handover management system
Primary indicator and weight
Secondary indicator and weight
Composite weight
A1: Pre-handover preparation (0.3512)B1: Completeness of patient information preparation (0.4015)0.1411
B2: Preparation of drugs/supplies/equipment (0.3287)0.1155
B3: Environment and personnel readiness (0.2698)0.0948
A2: Handover process execution (0.4635)B4: Accurate patient identification (0.2150)0.0997
B5: Completeness of intra-operative status transfer (0.1832)0.0849
B6: Handover of vital signs and level of consciousness (0.1714)0.0794
B7: Tubing check and secure fixation (0.1555)0.0721
B8: Fluid balance and medication summary (0.1349)0.0625
B9: Skin integrity and belongings transfer (0.0751)0.0348
B10: Special issues and key medical orders (0.0649)0.0301
A3: Post-handover verification (0.1853)B11: Information recheck and clarification of doubts (0.6328)0.1172
B12: Mutual signature and documentation (0.3672)0.0681
Table 2 Importance scores and weights for selected level 3 indicators
Level 2 indicator
Level 3 indicator
Importance score (mean ± SD)
Weight
B4: Accurate patient identificationUse at least two methods to verify identity (name, hospital ID)4.95 ± 0.220.402
Check wristband information4.85 ± 0.370.318
Verify operative site and procedure4.75 ± 0.440.280
B7: Tubing check and secure fixationName, insertion depth, and fixation of each tube (drains, NG, CVC, etc.)4.90 ± 0.310.256
Confirm drain patency and characteristics/volume of drainage4.95 ± 0.220.294
IV access patent; insertion site without leakage or swelling4.80 ± 0.410.235
Oxygen catheter/mask patent and properly secured4.60 ± 0.500.215
B11: Information recheck and clarification of doubtsReceiving nurse repeats key data (blood loss, special drugs, allergies)4.75 ± 0.440.421
Handover staff confirm or correct the repeated information4.70 ± 0.470.342
Both parties immediately clarify any discrepancies and reach agreement4.85 ± 0.370.237
Table 3 Baseline data comparison between the two patient groups, n (%)
GroupnSex
Age (years)Surgery time (minutes)ASA
Types of surgery
Male
Female
II

IV
Open-abdominal surgery
Laparoscopic
Experimental250142 (56.80)108 (43.20)58.76 ± 8.23182.54 ± 35.6348 (19.20)152 (60.80)50 (20.00)95 (38.00)155 (62.00)
Control250139 (55.60)111 (44.40)57.95 ± 9.14178.96 ± 35.2652 (20.80)146 (58.40)52 (20.80)88 (35.20)(64.80)
χ2/t-0.0731.0911.2390.2180.456
P value-0.7870.2760.2160.8970.500
Table 4 Expert consultation results
Round
Questionnaires distributed
Valid responses
Valid response rate
Expert authority coefficient
Kendall’s W
χ2 value
P value
120201000.870.216135.24< 0.001
220201000.890.331207.51< 0.001
Table 5 Comparison of handover quality indicators between the two patient groups
Group
n
Handover time (minutes)
Information omission rate (%)
Experimental 2509.86 ± 1.833.28 ± 1.57
Control 2508.52 ± 2.1515.86 ± 4.34
t-value-8.62445.217
P value-< 0.001< 0.001
Table 6 Comparison of complication and adverse event incidence during the anesthesia recovery period, n (%)
Group
n
Hypothermia
Agitation
Nausea/vomiting
Respiratory depression
Unplanned extubation
Infusion failure
Pressure ulcer
Experimental 25035 (14.00)28 (11.20)33 (13.20)5 (2.00)0 (0.00)4 (1.60)1 (0.40)
Control 25068 (27.20)55 (22.00)42 (16.80)8 (3.20)2 (0.80)15 (6.00)3 (1.20)
χ2 value-15.78911.4291.5630.7142.0087.1431.026
P value-< 0.0010.0010.2110.3980.1560.0080.311
Table 7 Comparison of handover satisfaction among medical staff in the two groups
Group
n
Process clarity
Information completeness
Work efficiency
Overall security
Total score
Experimental 3090.22 ± 5.3593.66 ± 4.1485.45 ± 6.8392.51 ± 5.0290.43 ± 4.56
Control 3076.43 ± 8.2672.81 ± 9.5870.69 ± 10.1475.27 ± 8.7573.88 ± 7.64
t-value-7.89211.2346.5439.87610.123
P value-< 0.001< 0.001< 0.001< 0.001< 0.001