through surveys (p. 139). Personally, the group would have placed higher confidence in study had this percentage been higher. Chaboyer et al. (2009) also offered no reasoning to explain why less that 2/3 of staff responded to the survey, which again would have been beneficial to the study. Further, descriptions of the interviews would have strengthened this particular section. The authors could have included the questions asked, the setting in which the interview took place, and who conducted the interview. By including these particular components of gathering results it would address any issues of that could or did exist. biases’ The top three benefits that were given from those 54% who returned the survey are: increased from shift coordinators and team leaders (59% agreement), improved patient “support safety (44% agreement), and improved patient outcomes through discharge planning (44%) (Chaboyer et al., 2009, p.139). It was also reported that since coordinators and agreement” “shift team leaders attend bedside handover along with the other staff, they have a better understanding of the situations with which nursing staff will have to deal during the shift” (p.139). Another comment focusing on the attendance of nursing leaders in handover was it an “provided opportunity for these leaders to model the behavior, share their expertise, and respond to queries” (p. 139). Finally, staff also commented on the fact that other members of the multidisciplinary team attended handover, which better communication between “promoted professional groups” (p. 139). The final component addressed in the results section is the changes that have been made to the bedside handover process since 2006 when the change was implemented. Chaboyer et al (2009) stated the rehabilitation ward patients now lead the handover, with nurses adding “on information as The reader would like to know the reason for the change of the required” (p.140). party leading report on this ward, which was not given. The reader assumes it coincides with
through surveys (p. 139). Personally, the group would have placed higher confidence in study had this percentage been higher. Chaboyer et al. (2009) also offered no reasoning to explain why less that 2/3 of staff responded to the survey, which again would have been beneficial to the study. Further, descriptions of the interviews would have strengthened this particular section. The authors could have included the questions asked, the setting in which the interview took place, and who conducted the interview. By including these particular components of gathering results it would address any issues of biases’ that could or did exist. The top three benefits that were given from those 54% who returned the survey are: increased “support from shift coordinators and team leaders (59% agreement), improved patient safety (44% agreement), and improved patient outcomes through discharge planning (44%) agreement” (Chaboyer et al., 2009, p.139). It was also reported that since “shift coordinators and team leaders attend bedside handover along with the other staff, they have a better understanding of the situations with which nursing staff will have to deal during the shift” (p.139). Another comment focusing on the attendance of nursing leaders in handover was it “provided an opportunity for these leaders to model the behavior, share their expertise, and respond to queries” (p. 139). Finally, staff also commented on the fact that other members of the multidisciplinary team attended handover, which “promoted better communication between professional groups” (p. 139). The final component addressed in the results section is the changes that have been made to the bedside handover process since 2006 when the change was implemented. Chaboyer et al (2009) stated “on the rehabilitation ward patients now lead the handover, with nurses adding information as required” (p.140). The reader would like to know the reason for the change of the party leading report on this ward, which was not given. The reader assumes it coincides with