Optimizing Patient Safety Through Closed-Loop Communication in Healthcare
- Paul Mullan
- Jan 16
- 21 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
Closed-loop communication is one of the simplest ways to prevent avoidable mistakes in high-risk healthcare situations. It’s also one of the easiest habits to skip when teams feel rushed. When communication isn’t confirmed, tasks get missed, orders get misheard, and assumptions multiply. Closed-loop communication fixes that with a repeatable 3-step loop. Quick Answer (TL;DR) Closed-loop communication is a structured method in which the sender provides a clear message, the receiver repeats it, and the sender confirms its accuracy. In healthcare, it reduces preventable errors during time-critical moments like medication dosing, resuscitations, handoffs, and OR workflows by ensuring the entire team shares the same verified information. Key Takeaways
Use it for orders, critical values, and urgent task assignments
Core steps: Call-Out → Check-Back → Confirm
Works best when the receiver is clearly named
Prevents “assumed understanding” under pressure
Builds accountability without blame
Reinforce it through repetition and coaching
Three Step Closed-Loop Communication Process Between the Sender and Receiver
Most Common Mistakes:
1. A team member "sends the message” (# 1: Call-Out) but never confirms it was understood (Skips # 2: Check-Back)
2. A team member "sends the message" (# 1: Call-Out), the receiver repeats it (# 2: Check-Back)... but it is not confirmed (# 3: Confirm). See video example below....
What is closed-loop communication, and why does it matter for patient safety
Effective communication is the cornerstone of safe, efficient healthcare delivery, particularly in the complex, high-stakes environment of hospital teams.[1] Communication failures often precipitate medical errors, affecting patient outcomes and quality of care while incurring financial penalties for healthcare organizations.[2] This pervasive challenge underscores the critical need for structured communication strategies that enhance interprofessional collaboration and mitigate risks inherent in clinical workflows.[3] One such strategy, closed-loop communication, provides a robust means to ensure that critical information is accurately transmitted, received, and understood among healthcare professionals, thereby reducing ambiguity and preventing misunderstandings.[4] Adapted from high-reliability organizations such as aviation, this method systematically addresses common failure modes in information exchange by establishing clear protocols for message transmission and verification.[1]
Why is effective communication so critical in healthcare teams?
The inherent complexity of modern medical care, involving multiple specialties and frequent patient handoffs, further amplifies the need for unambiguous, timely communication to maintain continuity of care and prevent adverse events.[2] This continuous exchange of vital patient information, often under significant time pressure,
requires highly reliable communication mechanisms to avert catastrophic outcomes. Recognizing these challenges, healthcare systems increasingly emphasize structured communication techniques to minimize the pervasive risk of miscommunication. Closed-loop communication is a particularly effective method because its structured, three-step process ensures message fidelity and prevents information loss across dynamic care teams.[5] This protocol, encompassing a call-out, check-back, and confirmation, systematically mitigates risks associated with incomplete or inaccurate information exchange, especially in fast-paced clinical scenarios.[6]
What is closed-loop communication in clinical settings?
Closed-loop communication is a structured technique that eliminates ambiguity and confirms understanding between a sender and receiver during critical information exchange. It is frequently cited as a best practice for improving team performance and patient safety. This process ensures that messages are not only sent but also confirmed as received and correctly interpreted by the intended recipient, thereby closing the communication loop and minimizing the potential for error.[4,7] It involves the sender clearly transmitting a message, the receiver repeating it to confirm understanding, and the sender then verifying that the repeated message is accurate.[8] This iterative process is especially crucial in acute care settings, where misinterpretation of orders or patient information can have immediate and severe consequences.[9]
What will this review cover about closed-loop communication?
Closed-loop communication enhances clarity, reduces errors, and fosters a culture of safety by ensuring that all team members operate with the same validated information.[9,10] This paper will explore the benefits, challenges, and implementation strategies of closed-loop communication in various hospital environments, drawing upon existing literature and practical insights from experienced healthcare professionals to offer actionable recommendations for improving patient safety and team effectiveness. It will also address common implementation pitfalls and offer strategies to overcome workflow friction, particularly in the demanding hospital setting.
By delineating its application across diverse clinical scenarios, from surgical suites to emergency departments, this review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how closed-loop communication can be leveraged to optimize patient care and team performance.[11] Furthermore, this paper will delve into how leaders can effectively champion and integrate closed-loop communication within their teams, highlighting successful leadership strategies and acknowledging the practical challenges encountered during implementation.[9]
Ultimately, this comprehensive analysis will underscore the transformative potential of closed-loop communication as a foundational element of high-reliability healthcare, emphasizing its role in fostering a proactive safety culture. Despite its clear advantages, successful implementation often hinges on overcoming inherent resistance to change within established clinical hierarchies and integrating new communication protocols seamlessly into often chaotic workflows.[1]
What is the conceptual framework behind closed-loop communication?
Core Components: Call-Out, Check-Back, and Confirm (to Close the Loop)
At its core, closed-loop communication involves a minimum of three distinct yet interconnected phases: the clear transmission of a message by a sender, the subsequent confirmation of understanding through explicit repetition or paraphrasing, and finally, the sender's verification that the message was accurately interpreted.[9] In the TeamSTEPPS Program, this is referred to as a call-out (which directs information from a sender to a specific individual), check-back (or repeat back, used to verify the receipt of communicated information from the receiver), and confirm (or "verify," signaling confirmation from the sender that the receiver’s repetition of the information was accurate which "closes the loop") [source:
Theoretical Underpinnings: High-Reliability Organizations and Crew Resource Management
This structured approach is deeply rooted in principles derived from high-reliability organizations and Crew Resource Management, disciplines renowned for managing high-risk environments where errors can have catastrophic consequences.[12,13] These frameworks emphasize the critical role of robust communication strategies in mitigating human error and enhancing overall system safety by fostering a culture of mutual accountability and continuous verification among team members. This ensures that information is not merely exchanged but is also accurately processed and understood, thereby creating a shared mental model among the team. This proactive approach minimizes ambiguities that often arise in fast-paced clinical environments and reinforces a collective understanding of patient status and treatment plans.[9] Moreover, the psychological principles of cognitive load reduction and explicit feedback loops are integral to its efficacy, directly addressing common failure modes such as assumptions and misinterpretations under pressure.[14]
Distinguishing Closed-Loop from Open-Loop Communication
Understanding the fundamental differences between these two communication paradigms is crucial for appreciating the distinct advantages of the closed-loop model in healthcare settings, particularly for patient safety and team cohesion. While open-loop communication assumes that a message sent is a message received and understood, closed-loop communication builds in mechanisms to confirm comprehension, thereby drastically reducing the potential for error.[4] This intentional redundancy, while seemingly adding a step, is a deliberate design to capture and correct misunderstandings before they can manifest as clinical adverse events, a
lesson learned from aviation and other high-stakes industries.[15]
What are the benefits of closed-loop communication for healthcare teams?
Effective communication within healthcare teams is paramount for ensuring patient safety and optimizing clinical outcomes. Closed-loop communication, by systematically confirming message receipt and understanding, directly addresses this need by minimizing ambiguity and fostering a shared mental model among team members, ultimately reducing the incidence of medical errors.[16] This structured approach cultivates a robust safety culture, enabling healthcare professionals to proactively identify and mitigate risks associated with miscommunication.[4]
Enhancing Patient Safety and Reducing Medical Errors
This is particularly critical in dynamic clinical environments, where rapid decision-making and precise execution are essential to prevent adverse events.[16] By establishing a clear confirmation pathway, closed-loop communication significantly reduces diagnostic errors and improves the accuracy of treatment protocols, leading to a measurable reduction in preventable adverse events.[17] This method also bolsters accountability, as each team member is explicitly responsible for both transmitting and confirming critical information, creating a collective defense against lapses in care.[1]
Improving Team Coordination and Situational Awareness
The consistent use of closed-loop communication fosters a more cohesive and synchronized team dynamic, with each member's role and responsibilities clearly understood, leading to enhanced collective situational awareness and more effective responses to emergent clinical situations. This proactive approach ensures that all team members operate from a unified understanding of the patient's condition and treatment plan, thereby optimizing coordinated care delivery and minimizing misunderstandings that can arise under pressure. Moreover, it cultivates an environment where all voices are heard and valued, as exemplified by instances in which nurses use structured communication tools to respectfully challenge physician decisions, ultimately enhancing patient safety.[18]
Fostering a Culture of Clarity and Accountability
The explicit confirmation steps inherent in closed-loop communication instill a profound sense of individual and collective accountability, making it unequivocally clear who is responsible for specific tasks and ensuring that critical information is neither overlooked nor misinterpreted, even in the most demanding clinical scenarios. [19] This structured communication framework minimizes the common failure mode of assumed understanding, which often leads to errors in medication administration or procedural execution, thereby embedding clarity into daily operational workflows.
Optimizing Workflow Efficiency and Resource Utilization
By streamlining information exchange and reducing the need for repeated clarifications, closed-loop communication improves resource allocation, including personnel time and medical supplies. This optimization yields tangible benefits, such as reduced patient wait times and improved throughput in high-volume areas, allowing healthcare professionals to devote more focused attention to direct patient care rather than resolving communication breakdowns.[20] This enhanced efficiency not only boosts staff satisfaction by reducing frustration associated with miscommunication but also positively impacts the overall financial performance of healthcare institutions through judicious resource management.
What implementation challenges and failure modes should teams expect?
Even with a clear understanding of its benefits, integrating closed-loop communication into existing healthcare workflows presents significant hurdles, including resistance stemming from ingrained habits and the perceived increase in communication overhead during high-stakes situations.
Time Constraints and Workload Pressures
The perception that closed-loop communication consumes valuable time is a significant barrier, especially in fast-paced clinical environments where healthcare professionals are already managing heavy patient loads and competing demands.[21] This pressure often leads to shortcuts in communication, inadvertently increasing the risk of misinterpretation and errors, particularly when rapid decisions are required.[22] Leaders must recognize that while initial implementation may feel slower, the long-term gains in safety and efficiency far outweigh the perceived time investment, necessitating a strategic approach to training and ongoing reinforcement.[23]
Hierarchy and Communication Barriers
Hierarchical structures within healthcare teams can inadvertently stifle open communication, as junior staff may hesitate to question or seek clarification from senior colleagues, even when understanding remains incomplete. This dynamic can be particularly detrimental in complex cases, where precise information transfer is critical to patient safety, underscoring the need for leadership to actively foster an environment where all team members feel empowered to voice concerns and seek confirmation, regardless of position.
Training Deficiencies and Inconsistent Application
A lack of standardized training programs and inconsistent application of closed-loop communication techniques across departments or shifts can significantly undermine their effectiveness, leading to variability in communication practices and creating new opportunities for error.[24] Without consistent reinforcement and clear expectations from leadership, these crucial communication strategies can quickly devolve into superficial protocols that fail to embed deeply in daily clinical practice, thereby limiting their intended impact on patient safety and team performance.[25]
Technological Integration and Workflow Friction
The introduction of secure text messaging systems as a technological solution, while offering benefits such as reduced task completion time and improved productivity, has also introduced new challenges, including alarm fatigue and misinterpretation of messages, which can inadvertently replace critical verbal communication.[26,27]
Moreover, the asynchronous nature of text-based communication lacks the immediate feedback and non-verbal cues crucial for clarifying nuances and ensuring shared understanding, particularly for less experienced staff who may be hesitant to seek further clarification.[28] Effective integration requires careful consideration of how
these digital tools supplement, rather than supplant, established closed-loop verbal protocols, especially in high-acuity environments where miscommunication can have catastrophic consequences.[28]
Team Dynamics and Resistance to Change
Established interprofessional dynamics, often marked by ingrained communication patterns and occasional interpersonal conflicts, can impede the adoption of new communication protocols, necessitating targeted team-building interventions and clear directives from leadership to overcome inherent resistance to change. This
resistance is often exacerbated when implementation overlooks existing power differentials and the potential for perceived challenges to established professional autonomy.[29] Overcoming these entrenched patterns requires sustained effort, including dedicated training sessions that address interdisciplinary communication, along with visible leadership commitment to champion and model closed-loop practices.[18]
How can hospitals implement closed-loop communication and sustain adoption?
Embedding closed-loop communication effectively in healthcare settings requires a multifaceted approach that emphasizes leadership engagement, comprehensive training, and continuous feedback mechanisms to ensure consistent application and adaptation. This strategic framework must identify champions within clinical teams
who can advocate for and exemplify effective communication and develop feedback loops that enable real-time adjustments and refinements to communication protocols, optimizing their utility and acceptance.
Leadership Commitment and Role Modeling
Effective leadership is essential to fostering a safety culture in which closed-loop communication is not merely an administrative directive but an ingrained practice. Leaders who visibly prioritize and actively demonstrate these communication behaviors serve as powerful catalysts for team adoption and sustained engagement. Such
commitment entails allocating necessary resources, including protected time for training and debriefing after complex communication exchanges, to reinforce the institutional value placed on precise and unambiguous information exchange. (30)
Standardized Protocols and Communication Tools
Establishing standardized protocols, such as SBAR or call-out/read-back procedures, provides a structured framework for information exchange, reducing ambiguity and ensuring that critical data points are consistently conveyed and understood across diverse clinical scenarios.[1] These structured communication tools, particularly
when integrated with electronic health records, can further enhance clarity and reliability by standardizing data fields for critical patient information. (31) However, the efficacy of these tools hinges on rigorous training and continuous auditing to prevent superficial compliance and ensure their meaningful application in high-stakes clinical interactions.[32]
Comprehensive Training and Simulation-Based Learning
Rigorous, recurring training programs, ideally incorporating high-fidelity simulation or in situ simulation, are indispensable for developing and refining closed-loop communication skills, allowing healthcare professionals to practice and internalize these techniques in a safe, controlled environment before applying them in real-world
clinical situations. These immersive experiences help build collective reflexes and shared mental models, which are critical for effective teamwork and swift decision-making under pressure.[33,34] Beyond initial training, ongoing interprofessional education and collaborative exercises further promote mutual understanding and align goals across diverse professional roles, thereby reinforcing the benefits of closed-loop communication.[14]
Feedback Mechanisms and Continuous Quality Improvement
Establishing regular feedback sessions and continuous quality improvement initiatives is crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of implemented communication strategies and for making necessary adjustments over time.[35]
These mechanisms, including team debriefings after routine and non-routine clinical events, enable critical team reflection on communication breakdowns and successes, fostering a culture of iterative learning and refinement within the healthcare team.[36,37] Team debriefings offer a critical opportunity for healthcare teams to collectively
analyze communication effectiveness, identify latent failures in established protocols, and collaboratively develop actionable strategies to enhance future performance.[38,39]
How do you measure the impact of closed-loop communication?
Quantifying the tangible benefits of closed-loop communication requires a robust framework for data collection and analysis that focuses on both process measures, such as adherence to communication protocols, and outcome measures, including reductions in adverse events and improvements in patient safety indicators.[25] This comprehensive approach clearly demonstrates the return on investment in communication training and infrastructure, thereby justifying sustained resource allocation and further integration into clinical workflows.
Quantitative Metrics: Incident Reports and Error Rates
Beyond mere incident reporting, a deeper analysis of error types, their contributing factors, and the frequency of communication-related failures in these reports can provide granular insights into specific areas requiring intervention.[40] Furthermore, tracking trends in near misses and good catches, related to communication breakdowns, offers a proactive way to identify vulnerabilities before they cause harm, providing invaluable data for targeted quality improvement initiatives.[41] This data can also inform predictive analytics, allowing healthcare systems to anticipate and proactively mitigate potential communication risks. Qualitative data, derived from staff surveys, focus groups, and direct observation of communication practices, provide invaluable context for quantitative findings, highlighting the underlying systemic and human factors that influence communication effectiveness.[42]
Qualitative Assessments: Team Perception and Workflow Analysis
Examining workflow analyses through methods such as process mapping and direct observation can identify friction points and bottlenecks in information transfer that objective metrics might miss.[43] Such granular insights, derived from both structured interviews and unstructured feedback, are essential for identifying the subtle nuances of interpersonal dynamics and system-level inefficiencies that impede effective closed-loop communication.[16,44] These qualitative assessments are invaluable for pinpointing specific challenges and tailoring interventions to address the unique complexities of individual clinical environments, fostering a more resilient and responsive communication infrastructure.[45] A dual approach of quantitative and qualitative data collection can provide a comprehensive understanding of communication challenges, enabling the development of targeted interventions and continuous refinement of communication strategies.[46]
Challenges in Attribution and Outcome Measurement
The multifaceted nature of healthcare outcomes often makes it difficult to isolate the precise impact of closed-loop communication from other confounding variables, necessitating sophisticated statistical methods for robust attribution. This complexity underscores the importance of employing rigorous study designs, including quasi-
experimental or stepped-wedge designs, to accurately evaluate the causal link between communication interventions and improvements in patient safety and quality of care.[47] Furthermore, the dynamic and often chaotic environment of healthcare can introduce variability in communication practices, making consistent measurement and evaluation challenging.[44]
What are the future directions and research opportunities for closed-loop communication?
Future research should focus on developing and validating standardized tools to assess closed-loop communication effectiveness across diverse clinical settings, moving beyond subjective evaluations toward more objective, observable measures. (9) This includes leveraging technological advancements, such as natural language processing and machine learning, to analyze communication patterns from electronic health records and real-time audio/video feeds, providing a more granular understanding of communication dynamics [9,48,49]. Moreover, prospective studies are needed to evaluate the long-term impact of closed-loop communication interventions on patient outcomes, provider well-being, and organizational culture, thereby strengthening the
evidence base for widespread implementation.[22,50]
Technological Innovations in Communication Support
The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms could facilitate real-time feedback on communication efficacy, identifying potential miscommunications or information gaps before they escalate into adverse events. Such technological advancements could not only enhance the precision of information exchange but also provide personalized coaching to healthcare professionals, adapting to individual communication styles and learning needs.[51] Further research is also needed to explore the ethical implications and potential biases embedded in AI-driven communication tools, ensuring equitable implementation across diverse healthcare populations.[44] Beyond technological solutions, the role of human factors engineering in designing intuitive communication interfaces and workflows warrants further exploration to minimize cognitive load and enhance usability, particularly during high-stress situations.
Integrating Closed-Loop Principles into Healthcare Education
Incorporating closed-loop communication as a foundational element within medical and nursing curricula can foster a deeply ingrained culture of clear, concise, and confirmed information exchange from the earliest stages of professional development. This integration would involve experiential learning opportunities, simulation-based training, and interprofessional education initiatives, ensuring that future healthcare providers are adept at both initiating and closing communication loops effectively in various clinical scenarios.
Addressing Communication Disparities Across Diverse Healthcare Settings
Research must also focus on understanding how cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic factors influence communication patterns and outcomes, developing tailored interventions that acknowledge and address these disparities to ensure equitable care delivery.[52] This includes examining the effectiveness of communication strategies in resource-limited settings and among vulnerable populations, where communication breakdowns can have disproportionately severe consequences. By focusing on these often-overlooked areas, researchers can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how closed-loop communication can be universally applied to enhance patient safety and quality of care.[53]
What’s the bottom line on closed-loop communication in healthcare?
In conclusion, the sustained integration of closed-loop communication principles, supported by rigorous empirical evaluation and tailored educational strategies, is paramount for cultivating a culture of safety and precision within healthcare organizations. (24) This commitment to transparent, acknowledged information
exchange, from initial message transmission to confirmed receipt and understanding, is fundamental to mitigating medical errors and optimizing patient outcomes. (26,54)
Reiterating the Value of Closed-Loop Communication
The ongoing adoption and refinement of closed-loop communication strategies are not merely procedural enhancements but foundational pillars for building resilient healthcare systems capable of navigating the inherent complexities and pressures of modern clinical practice.[55]
Moving Towards a Culture of Communication Excellence
Changing communication practices in healthcare would require sustained commitment to training, feedback, and systemic reinforcement to ensure that every team member understands their role in the communication continuum and actively engages in its practice. Ultimately, fostering such a culture transforms communication from a mere task into an intrinsic element of patient-centered care, driving continuous quality improvement and enhancing overall patient safety. Ultimately, fostering such a culture transforms communication from a mere task into an intrinsic element of patient-centered care, driving continuous quality improvement and enhancing
overall patient safety.[56]
About the author:
Paul Mullan, MD, MPH is an emergency physician and quality improvement leader focused on clinical communication, team learning, and post-event debriefing systems.
FAQ Section
What is closed-loop communication in healthcare?
Closed-loop communication is a structured technique where the sender gives a clear message, the receiver repeats it back, and the sender confirms accuracy. It reduces miscommunication during high-risk moments such as resuscitations, medication dosing, and handoffs.
Why is closed-loop communication important for patient safety?
Communication failures are a major cause of preventable harm. Closed-loop communication helps confirm critical information, catch misunderstandings early, and prevent missed tasks or wrong actions during urgent care.
What are the three steps of closed-loop communication?
Call-Out: clearly state the message or task.
Check-Back: the receiver repeats it back verbatim.
Confirm: the sender verifies it is correct.
When should teams use closed-loop communication?
Use it during high-risk or high-stakes situations, including medication orders/dosing, critical lab values, resuscitations, rapid task assignment, transfers, and handoffs across ED, ICU, OR, and inpatient teams.
What is an example of closed-loop communication?
Doctor: “Give 0.02 mg/kg epinephrine IV now.”
Nurse: “Epinephrine 0.02 mg/kg IV now.”
Doctor: “Correct.”
What are common mistakes teams make with closed-loop communication?
Common pitfalls include skipping the repeat-back, unclear task ownership (“someone get labs”), multiple people responding at once, not confirming after the check-back, and assuming a message was heard without verification.
References
1. Rodrigues B, Moreira S, Gondim MAM, et al. Effective Communication Between Multiprofessional Health Teams: Practical Strategies to Ensure Patient Safety and Quality of Care. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental . 2025;19(4). https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v19n4-022
2. Leonard M. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. BMJ Quality & Safety . 2004;13. https://doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.010033
3. Woods D, Holl JL, Angst DB, et al. Improving Clinical Communication and Patient Safety: Clinician-Recommended Solutions. Published online August 1, 2008. Accessed November 2025. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.170.9845
4. Donaldson L, Ricciardi W, Sheridan SE, Tartaglia R. Textbook of Patient Safety and Clinical Risk Management .; 2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59403-9
5. Salik I, Ashurst J. Closed Loop Communication Training in Medical Simulation. StatPearls . Published online July 26, 2021. Accessed October 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31751089/
6. Nadir NA, Bentley S, Papanagnou D, Bajaj K, Rinnert S, Sinert R. Characteristics of Real-Time, Non-Critical Incident Debriefing Practices in the Emergency Department. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine . 2017;18(1):146. https://doi:10.5811/westjem.2016.10.31467
7. Broman KK, Kensinger CD, Hart H, Mathisen J, Kripalani S. Closing the loop: a process evaluation of inpatient care team communication. BMJ Quality & Safety . 2015;26(1):30. https://doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004580
8. Mangafic S, Axelsson B, Holzmann MJ, Arbeus M, Bjurman C. Communication in intensive care units and cardiac wards – A literature review and personal experiences. Journal of Hospital Administration. 2018;8(1):1. https://doi:10.5430/jha.v8n1p1
9. Etherington C, Wu M, Cheng‐Boivin O, Larrigan S, Boet S. Interprofessional communication in the operating room: a narrative review to advance research and practice. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal Canadien d anesthésie . 2019;66(10):1251. https://doi:10.1007/s12630-019-01413-9
10. Alexandrino H, Martinho B, Ferreira L, Baptista S. Non-technical skills and teamwork in trauma: from the emergency department to the operating room. Frontiers in Medicine . 2023;10. https://doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1319990
11. Rarani SA. Viewing patient safety in surgery through the lens of a theatrical performance: a narrative review. Patient Safety in Surgery . 2025;19(1). https://doi:10.1186/s13037-025-00448-w
12. Grossman R, Billotti BM, Ha JJ, Cassara M. Should the existing science of teams be applied to fluid teams? An exploration of fluid team effectiveness within the context of healthcare simulation. Frontiers in Psychology . 2024;15. https://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323469
13. Hémon B. Studies of safety voice attitudes : conception of a questionnaire and a simulation-based intervention with nursing students. HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe).Published online June 8, 2021. Accessed April 2025. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03435241
14. JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE SCIENCES. Journal of Healthcare Sciences . Published online May 1, 2021. https://doi:10.52533/johs
15. Tamuz M, Harrison MI. Improving Patient Safety in Hospitals: Contributions of High‐Reliability Theory and Normal Accident Theory. Health Services Research . 2006;41:1654. https://doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00570.x
16. Dingley C, Daugherty K, Derieg MK, Persing R. Improving Patient Safety Through Provider Communication Strategy Enhancements. Published online August 1, 2008. Accessed November 2025. https://ohiohospitals.org/OHA/media/Images/Patient%20Safety%20and%20Quality/Documents/PfP/CoS/advances-dingley_14.pdf
17. Ferreira M, Brás CP da C, Barbiéri M do C. Clinical Communication and Adverse Health Events: Literature Review. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences . Published online July 31, 2016:328. https://doi:10.15405/epsbs.2016.07.02.32
18. Ballangrud R, Aase K, Vifladt A. Longitudinal team training program in a Norwegian surgical ward: a qualitative study of nurses’ and physicians’ experiences with implementation. BMC Health Services Research . 2021;21(1). https://doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06732-6.
19. Tannenbaum SI, Traylor AM, Thomas EJ, Salas E. Managing teamwork in the face of pandemic: evidence-based tips. BMJ quality & safety . 2021;30(1):59. https://doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011447
20. Zamani H, Parvaresh F, Isfahani MN. Optimizing patient flow logistics: strategic challenges, tactical solutions, and future directions. BMC Health Services Research . 2025;25(1):1382. https://doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13516-9
21. Dalal AK, Bates DW, Collins S. Opportunities and Challenges for Improving the Patient Experience in the Acute and Post–Acute Care Setting Using Patient Portals: The Patient’s Perspective. Journal of Hospital Medicine . 2017;12(12):1012. https://doi:10.12788/jhm.2860.
22. Taher A, Glazer PM, Culligan C, et al. Improving safety and communication for healthcare providers caring for SARS-COV-2 patients. International Journal of Emergency Medicine . 2022;15(1). https://doi:10.1186/s12245-022-00464-y
23. Scanlon MC, Karsh B. Value of human factors to medication and patient safety in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine . 2010;38. https://doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181dd8de2
24. Wright B, Lennox A, Graber ML, Bragge P. Closing the loop on test results to reduce communication failures: a rapid review of evidence, practice and patient perspectives. BMC Health Services Research. 2020;20(1). https://doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05737-x
25. Methangkool E, Tollinche L, Sparling JL, Agarwala AV. Communication: Is There a Standard Handover Technique to Transfer Patient Care? International Anesthesiology Clinics . 2019;57(3):35. https://doi:10.1097/aia.0000000000000241
26. Brahmbhatt R. Empowering Patient-Centric Communication: Integrating Quiet Hours for Healthcare Notifications with Retail & E-Commerce Operations Strategies. Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management . 2025;10:64. https://doi:10.52783/jisem.v10i23s.3677
27. Byrd TF, Speigel P, Cameron KA, O’Leary KJ. Barriers to Adoption of a Secure Text Messaging System: a Qualitative Study of Practicing Clinicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine . 2022;38(5):1224. https://doi:10.1007/s11606-022-07912-8
28. Hagedorn P, Singh A, Luo B, Bonafide CP, Simmons JM. Secure Text Messaging in Healthcare: Latent Threats and Opportunities to Improve Patient Safety. Journal of Hospital Medicine.2019;15(6):378. https://doi:10.12788/jhm.3305
29. Searl M, Borgi L, Chemali Z. It is time to talk about people: a human-centered healthcare system. Health Research Policy and Systems . 2010;8(1). https://doi:10.1186/1478-4505-8-35.
30. Brindle M, Henrich N, Foster A, et al. Implementation of surgical debriefing programs in large health systems: an exploratory qualitative analysis. BMC Health Services Research . 2018;18(1). https://doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3003-3
31. Kandaswamy S, Pruitt Z, Kazi S, et al. Clinician Perceptions on the Use of Free-Text Communication Orders. Applied Clinical Informatics . 2021;12(3):484. https://doi:10.1055/s-0041-1731002
32. Paquette S, Kilcullen M, Hoffman O, et al. Handoffs and the challenges to implementing teamwork training in the perioperative environment. Frontiers in Psychology . 2023;14. https://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1187262
33. Pacenko C de L, Figueiredo KC, Nunes E, Cruchinho P, Lucas P. Mapping strategies for strengthening safety culture: Scope review. Research Square (Research Square) . Published online January 23, 2024. https://doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3863564/v1
34. Uramatsu M, Fujisawa Y, Barach P, Osakabe H, Matsumoto M, Nagakawa Y. Failure to Rescue After Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Risk Factors and Safety Strategies. Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Published online October 8, 2025. https://doi:10.17615/j92p-b479
35. Silva MN da, Castro S de FF de, Ferreira M do CS, Silva ACB da. Proposta de intervenção para padronização da contenção de pacientes em unidade de terapia intensiva de um hospital público: Um relato de experiência. Research Society and Development . 2024;13(2). https://doi:10.33448/rsd-v13i2.45090
36. Keller S, Tschan F, Semmer NK, Trelle S, Manser T, Beldi G. StOP? II trial: cluster randomized clinical trial to test the implementation of a toolbox for structured communication in the operating room—study protocol. Trials . 2022;23(1). https://doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06775-y
37. Kessler DO, Cheng A, Mullan PC. Debriefing in the emergency department after clinical events: a practical guide. Annals of Emergency Medicine . 2015;65(6):690.
38. Mullan PC, Wuestner E, Kerr TD, Christopher DP, Patel B. Implementation of an in situ qualitative debriefing tool for resuscitations. Resuscitation . 2013;84(7):946.
39. Mullan PC, Kessler DO, Cheng A. Educational opportunities with postevent debriefing. JAMA . 2014;312(22):2333. https://doi:10.1001/jama.2014.15741
40. Schmidt M, Lambert SI, Klasen M, et al. Safety management in times of crisis: Lessons learned from a nationwide status-analysis on German intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Medicine . 2022;9. https://doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.988746
41. Majumdar M. ICU without borders: We reached out and MET them. In: IntechOpen eBooks. IntechOpen; 2024. https://doi:10.5772/intechopen.1005419
42. Wang Z, Hassan N, LeBaron V, et al. CommSense: A Wearable Sensing Computational Framework for Evaluating Patient-Clinician Interactions. arXiv (Cornell University) . Published online July 10, 2024. https://doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.08143
43. Patterson PD, Pfeiffer AJ, Weaver MD, et al. Network analysis of team communication in a busy emergency department. BMC Health Services Research . 2013;13(1). https://doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-109
44. Husain A, Cohen E, Dubrowski R, et al. A Clinical Communication Tool (Loop) for Team-Based Care in Pediatric and Adult Care Settings: Hybrid Mixed Methods Implementation Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research . 2021;23(3). https://doi:10.2196/25505
45. Bonaconsa C, Mbamalu O, Surendran S, George A, Mendelson M, Charani E. Optimizing infection control and antimicrobial stewardship bedside discussion: a scoping review of existing evidence on effective healthcare communication in hospitals. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2023;30(3):336. https://doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2023.12.011
46. Welch‐Horan TB, Mullan PC, Momin Z, et al. Team debriefing in the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study of a hospital-wide clinical event debriefing program and a novel qualitative model to analyze debriefing content. Advances in Simulation . 2022;7(1). https://doi:10.1186/s41077-022-00226-z
47. Huber J, Dexheimer JW, Ingraham H, et al. Initial steps to measurement and improvement of family-centered communication during the pediatric patient journey of bone marrow transplantation.Knowledge Management; E-Learning An International Journal. Published online December 26, 2020:488. https://doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2020.12.027
48. Hagedorn P, Kirkendall ES, Spooner SA, Mohan V. Inpatient Communication Networks: Leveraging Secure Text-Messaging Platforms to Gain Insight into Inpatient Communication Systems. Applied Clinical Informatics . 2019;10(3):471. https://doi:10.1055/s-0039-1692401
49. Cornett JA, Kuziemsky C. Team based communication and the healthcare communication space. Journal of Health Organization and Management . 2018;32(6):825. https://doi:10.1108/jhom-07-2017-0189
50. Nguyen C, McElroy LM, Abécassis M, Holl JL, Ladner DP. The use of technology for urgent clinician to clinician communications: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Medical Informatics . 2014;84(2):101. https://doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.11.003
51. Rego C, Montague E. The Impact of Feedback Modalities and the Influence of Cognitive Load on Interpersonal Communication in Nonclinical Settings: Experimental Study Design. JMIR Human Factors . 2023;10. https://doi:10.2196/49675
52. Shin JY. Patient-Clinician Communications: A Design Intervention for Patients’ Comprehension of Their Care. Deep Blue (University of Michigan) . Published online January 1, 2017. Accessed April 2025. https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/136866
53. Umberfield EE, Ghaferi AA, Krein SL, Manojlovich M. Using Incident Reports to Assess
Communication Failures and Patient Outcomes. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety . 2019;45(6):406. https://doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2019.02.006
54. JEAN-CHRISTOPHE C, Balança B, Lilot M, et al. Customisable digital cognitive aids cut total error by 75% defining a threshold for irreducible human error in clinical care: a pooled analysis of five randomised trials. bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) . Published online October 7, 2025. https://doi:10.1101/2025.10.04.25337246
55. Qua K, Fuest S, Taddese N, Windish DM, Kryzhanovskaya I. Communication in Clinical and Educational Spaces: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of General Internal Medicine . Published online October 23, 2024. https://doi:10.1007/s11606-024-09154-2
56. Castillo GF, Khalid M, Salas E. Beyond communication: an update on transforming healthcare teams. Frontiers in Medicine . 2024;11. https://doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1282173
Comments