Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 12, 2026

Design to Implementation Study for Development and Patient Validation of Paper-Based Toehold Switch Diagnostics
Published on: June 17, 2022
Development of a handoff evaluation tool for shift-to-shift physician handoffs: the Handoff CEX
Leora I Horwitz1, David Rand, Paul Staisiunas
1Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8093, USA. leora.horwitz@yale.edu
Background:
Increasing frequency of shift-to-shift handoffs coupled with regulatory requirements to evaluate handoff quality make a handoff evaluation tool necessary.
Objective:
To develop a handoff evaluation tool.
Design:
Tool development.
Setting:
Two academic medical centers.
Subjects:
Nurse practitioners, medicine housestaff, and hospitalist attendings.
Intervention:
Concurrent peer and external evaluations of shift-to-shift handoffs.
Measurements:
The Handoff CEX (clinical evaluation exercise) consists of 6 subdomains and 1 overall assessment, each scored from 1 to 9, where 1 to 3 is unsatisfactory and 7 to 9 is superior. We assessed range of scores, performance among subgroups, internal consistency, and agreement among types of raters.
Results:
We conducted 675 evaluations of 97 unique individuals during 149 handoff sessions. Scores ranged from unsatisfactory to superior in each domain. The highest rated domain for handoff providers was professionalism (median: 8; interquartile range [IQR]: 7-9); the lowest was content (median: 7; IQR: 6-8). Scores at the 2 institutions were similar, and scores did not differ significantly by training level. Spearman correlation coefficients among the CEX subdomains for provider scores ranged from 0.71 to 0.86, except for setting (0.39-0.40). Third-party external evaluators consistently gave lower marks for the same handoff than peer evaluators did. Weighted kappa scores for provider evaluations comparing external evaluators to peers ranged from 0.28 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01, 0.56) for setting to 0.59 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.80) for organization.
Conclusions:
This handoff evaluation tool was easily used by trainees and attendings, had high internal consistency, and performed similarly across institutions. Because peers consistently provided higher scores than external evaluators, this tool may be most appropriate for external evaluation.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Reports I: Hand-off Report
Following are the key components and categories of hand-off reports:
Purpose and Process:
SBAR I: Understanding the Concept
Standardized methods of communication have been developed to ensure that information is...
Discharge Summary Forms
Here's a detailed look at the key components and guidelines for preparing a discharge summary:
Nursing Evaluation
Section...
Assessment of apical radial pulse
The A-R pulse assessment involves simultaneous evaluation of the apical and radial pulses. When the apical and radial pulse rates vary, this assessment helps identify a pulse deficit.
Pre-Procedural Preparation
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...
