Critical Care Transport Nurses Day 2026: Design every high-acuity transfer as a clinical mission with one plan, one command path, and no hidden readiness gaps

February 18, 2026 · Executive brief

Critical Care Transport Nurses Day 2026

Treat every high-acuity transfer as a governed clinical service, not a gap between care settings.

Leadership signal

The transport environment is an extension of critical care.

Recognition is meaningful when the organization strengthens the conditions in which transport nurses make high-consequence decisions.

A critically ill patient does not become less complex when a vehicle moves, an elevator closes, or a receiving bed is several miles away. The clinical system becomes more constrained. Space narrows, equipment must be portable, access to additional staff changes, environmental forces affect care, and every unresolved ambiguity travels with the patient.

Critical care transport nurses work where bedside expertise, logistics, emergency readiness, and cross-organizational coordination meet. Their practice can include ground, rotor-wing, fixed-wing, intrahospital, interfacility, pediatric, neonatal, adult, military, and specialty retrieval contexts. The work differs across those environments, but the executive obligation is consistent: the mission should begin only when patient need is matched to an accountable team, a verified capability set, a receiving destination, and a contingency plan.

Recent evidence reinforces the value of deliberate matching. Nurse use of a pediatric interhospital triage scale showed strong agreement with physician decisions in simulated cases, especially for severe scenarios. A national UK survey found advanced clinical practitioners leading meaningful proportions of pediatric retrievals, while military readiness studies linked performance to specialty, sustainment training, and deployment experience. These findings do not support one universal staffing formula. They support a governed capability matrix that defines who can accept which mission, under what medical oversight, with what equipment and escalation support.^{3, 9, 11, 16}

The same principle applies to preparation. A transport vehicle can pass a shift checklist while a specific mission remains unsafe. Readiness is patient-specific. It includes current physiology, likely deterioration, airway and ventilation needs, medications and infusions, vascular access, monitoring, infection precautions, weight and size, equipment power, oxygen duration, route conditions, communications, destination capability, and the point at which the receiving team assumes ownership.

Nursing research describes meticulous preparation, practical routines, training, and post-incident discussion as central to safer intrahospital transport. Studies of nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and practice also show that positive attitudes alone do not establish competence. Leaders need repeatable education, supervised practice, direct observation, scenario-based assessment, and reliable access to job aids. A signed education roster is an input, not proof that the team can respond to a ventilator problem, medication interruption, line disconnection, sudden hypotension, or an unavailable destination.^{12, 13, 14}

Executive priority

Select one high-risk mission class and verify the complete route from request through accepted bedside handoff. Record where ownership, capability, equipment, communication, or learning becomes unreliable.

Annual observanceFebruary 18

ASTNA states that Critical Care Transport Nurses Day is celebrated annually on February 18.

Certification milestone20 years

BCEN marked the 20th anniversary of the CTRN ground-transport nursing certification in 2026.

Dated credential count676 nurses

BCEN reported 676 nurses holding the CTRN credential on March 1, 2026. This is not the total transport nursing workforce.

Executives should also distinguish professional recognition from a marketing message. The day is an opportunity to thank transport nurses, but gratitude should not substitute for safe staffing, fit-for-duty rules, equipment reliability, psychological safety, and influence over the policies that govern their work. A credible recognition message can name the nurse-led improvement being funded, the review mechanism being strengthened, or the barrier being removed.

Governance matters because transport decisions often cross reporting lines. The sending clinician may determine that transfer is necessary, the transfer center may secure destination acceptance, operations may assign a vehicle, a medical director may define scope and protocols, and the transport nurse may discover the final safety conflict at bedside. If the organization has not defined who can pause, redirect, or decline a mission, risk is pushed toward the person with the least organizational authority and the most immediate accountability.

Evidence chart

A checklist study shows a signal, not a universal benchmark.

One quasi-experimental study provides compatible before-and-after counts for a transparent visual. Local teams should not adopt its rate as a target.

A 2026 single-site study evaluated a newly developed intrahospital transport checklist with ICU nurses. Thirty transport cases were reviewed before implementation and 30 after implementation. The authors reported patient-safety incidents related to events per transport in 20 of 30 pre-implementation cases and 9 of 30 post-implementation cases. Nursing performance scores also improved. The design is useful for illustrating how a structured tool can support practice, but it cannot isolate the checklist from other temporal, training, or observation effects.⁴

Figure 1 · Evidence chart

Transport cases with a reported patient-safety incident, before and after checklist implementation

Before checklist

66.7%

After checklist

30.0%

Period	Cases with incident	Reviewed transports	Rate	95% Wilson CI	Method
Before checklist	20	30	66.7%	48.8% to 80.8%	One-group pretest-posttest review
After checklist	9	30	30.0%	16.7% to 47.9%	One-group pretest-posttest review

Figure note. Unit: percentage of reviewed transports with a patient-safety incident. Population: 60 intrahospital transports in two ICUs at one tertiary hospital, 30 before and 30 after checklist implementation. Confidence intervals were calculated for this brief using the Wilson method from the published counts. Limitations include a single site, small samples, a nonrandomized pre-post design, possible observer and temporal effects, and no adjustment for case mix. The values are study findings, not a performance threshold. Source: Lee and Choi, 2026.⁴

The practical lesson is not “install a checklist and expect a 36.7 percentage-point reduction.” The lesson is to connect a checklist to the conditions that make it usable: a defined mission class, nurse input, accessible placement, time to complete it, authority to stop when a required element is missing, and review of exceptions. A tool that becomes another form to click through can conceal risk instead of controlling it.

Broader guideline evidence supports caution. A 2025 review identified nine guidelines and 23 recommendations, but methodological and reporting quality varied, and some recommendations were inconsistent. Transport programs should use professional and accreditation standards as a governance foundation, then test local workflows rather than presenting any checklist as universally validated across populations, settings, and modes.⁶

A critical care transport nurse and respiratory therapist perform a calm predeparture equipment and line readiness check beside a covered patient on a transport stretcher in a bright ambulance bay. — **Illustrative image.** Patient-specific readiness includes the people, equipment, therapies, communications, and contingency resources required for the mission. Concept informed by the checklist, line-management, guideline, and nurse-experience evidence summarized in references 2, 4, 6, and 12.

Proposed process flow

Run the mission as a closed clinical operation.

The proposed future-state flow begins with a complete request and ends only when bedside acceptance and learning are documented.

The flow below is a design proposal, not a claim about current practice. It names the accountable owner at each stage and makes the pause-or-escalate decision visible. The transport nurse is central, but no individual should be expected to compensate silently for missing destination acceptance, incompatible equipment, unclear medication orders, inadequate oxygen duration, or an unmatched crew. Proactive risk assessment research demonstrates the value of examining failures across the route before waiting for harm to occur.¹⁸

Figure 2 · Proposed process flow

Future-state high-acuity transfer route

Request and classify

Capture acuity, therapies, isolation, patient size, destination, time sensitivity, and likely deterioration.

Owner: transfer center

Accept and match

Confirm receiving acceptance, crew scope, vehicle, equipment, medications, oxygen, and medical control.

Owner: clinical dispatch

Stabilize and verify

Complete bedside assessment, reconcile therapies, test equipment, secure lines, and agree on the deterioration plan.

Owner: transport nurse

Move and escalate

Monitor trends, use closed-loop communication, document interventions, and activate medical control when thresholds are met.

Owner: mission lead

Accept and learn

Transfer care at bedside, reconcile events and equipment, report defects, and assign follow-up actions.

Owner: receiving clinician

Figure note. This is a proposed future-state workflow. The decision between every stage is: proceed only when the required information, capability, and acceptance are present; otherwise correct, delay, redirect, or escalate through the defined command path. Local protocols, licensure, population, transport mode, and medical-control arrangements determine the final design. Sources informing the proposal include the guideline review, safety review, nurse-experience studies, and transport-team evidence in references 3, 6, 7, 12, 17, and 18.

Predeparture stabilization should not become a vague reason for delay, and speed should not become a reason to skip the capability match. The organization needs an agreed vocabulary. Delay caused by necessary airway stabilization is not operational failure. Delay caused by repeated incomplete requests, unavailable equipment, an unconfirmed bed, or ambiguity about the accepting clinician is a system defect. Recording cause codes helps leadership separate clinical work from avoidable waiting.

Line and device management deserves explicit attention. A 2026 study involving 142 progressive and intensive care patients reported fewer manual disconnections and better nurse perceptions of transport efficiency when a single-use securement device was used. The study is specific to one device and setting, so leaders should not generalize the product result without local evaluation. It does reinforce a wider point: line layout, visibility, securement, access, and contingency planning affect transport workload and risk.²

Continuous monitoring and early warning tools may add value, but they require governance. Pediatric transport research using 1,519 transports demonstrated data-driven detection of adverse respiratory and cardiovascular events and later developed interpretable prediction models with promising discrimination. These retrospective results are not authorization for autonomous clinical decisions. Before deployment, leaders would need external validation, workflow integration, false-alert analysis, data governance, human-factors testing, and clear accountability for response.^{1, 5}

Qualitative fishbone

Review the conditions around a transport defect.

The categories are deliberately unranked. They organize inquiry without inventing frequencies or assigning blame.

A transport event may appear to have one immediate cause, such as a depleted oxygen cylinder, a line disconnection, or an incomplete handoff. A useful review asks what made that failure possible. Was the patient’s need classified correctly? Did dispatch have the information required to match capability? Was replacement equipment available? Were the sending and receiving teams using the same medication concentration? Could the crew reach medical control? Did workload or fatigue make a normal workaround feel necessary?

Figure 3 · Qualitative fishbone

Unranked contributors to unreliable critical care transport

Patient and clinical plan

Acuity, deterioration risk, airway, ventilation, hemodynamics, medications, access, isolation, and stabilization thresholds.

People and capability

Credentials, scope, supervision, team familiarity, current competence, workload, fatigue, and psychological safety.

Equipment and supplies

Compatibility, battery, oxygen duration, line securement, medication availability, redundancy, maintenance, and loading.

Communication and handoff

Request completeness, destination acceptance, medical-control access, closed-loop communication, and bedside acknowledgment.

Environment and route

Weather, vibration, altitude, traffic, distance, access constraints, infection precautions, and destination conditions.

Governance and learning

Policies, authority to pause, event reporting, review timeliness, ownership, feedback, action closure, and standard revision.

Figure note. Qualitative, unranked cause categories. The display does not estimate prevalence, severity, or causal weight. Teams should populate it with local evidence from case review, observation, equipment logs, staff interviews, and patient or family feedback. Sources informing the categories include references 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 18.

Human factors should be examined without assuming that vigilance is the only control. A review of error traps in the transport of critically ill and anesthetized children and a simulated military air-transport study of medication-related error traps both support closer attention to interfaces, while other research examined workload, training frequency, and provider experience. The transport setting magnifies packaging, labels, lighting, noise, constrained access, vibration, protective equipment, and communication, which may change how reliably a familiar clinical task is performed.^{7, 9, 15}

Fatigue and recovery should sit inside the same system review. Transport programs often manage long shifts, overnight missions, unpredictable return times, weather holds, and emotionally intense events. A fitness-for-duty policy is credible only if staff can use it without retaliation and if operations have a realistic plan for replacement coverage. Leaders should monitor schedule patterns and listen for signs that people are routinely stretching beyond the written rule to keep the service running.

A sending nurse, critical care transport nurse, and receiving clinician conduct a structured clinical handoff in a bright ICU transfer area with a covered patient in the background. — **Illustrative image.** A reliable handoff makes illness trajectory, therapies, recent changes, pending risks, destination acceptance, and escalation thresholds explicit. Concept informed by the communication, guideline, safety, and family-experience evidence in references 6, 7, 12, 19, and 20.

Operating-system diagram

Give the transport program a visible clinical hub.

The hub coordinates accountable interfaces. It does not absorb responsibility that belongs to sending, receiving, operational, or executive leaders.

High reliability requires more than a skilled crew. It requires a service architecture that connects bedside decisions to dispatch, medical control, supply chain, maintenance, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, infection prevention, receiving services, safety, and executive oversight. When those interfaces are informal, the transport nurse becomes the organization’s last-minute integrator.

Figure 4 · Proposed operating-system diagram

Central transport clinical hub and accountable interfaces

Transport clinical hub

Owns mission classification, capability matching, operational command, medical-control access, exception visibility, and closed-loop learning.

Sending service

Accountable for clinical summary, stabilization, orders, access, therapies, specimens, records, and transfer readiness.

Receiving service

Accountable for destination capability, named acceptance, arrival readiness, bedside handoff, and unresolved-risk ownership.

Operations and logistics

Accountable for vehicle, crew availability, route, communications, fuel, oxygen, equipment, maintenance, and contingencies.

Clinical support

Pharmacy, respiratory therapy, infection prevention, blood bank, biomedical engineering, and other mission-specific resources.

Quality and safety

Accountable for reporting access, just review, trend analysis, action tracking, policy updates, and feedback to frontline teams.

Executive sponsor

Accountable for risk acceptance, resources, cross-organizational agreements, workforce conditions, and unresolved barriers.

Figure note. Proposed governance model. Lines of authority, licensure, medical control, transfer agreements, transport mode, and clinical scope must be adapted locally. The central hub coordinates rather than replaces the accountability of its interfaces. Sources informing the model include CAMTS standards and references 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 18.

Credentialing and competency should be tied to mission classes. BCEN’s CTRN program recognizes critical care ground transport as a specialty, and ASTNA provides profession-specific resources. Certification can support a competency framework, but certification status alone should not be treated as a complete local privilege. Programs still need population-specific orientation, equipment proficiency, medication and blood-product training, supervised missions, continuing education, and reassessment.

Prehospital transfusion illustrates the gap between having a program and evaluating its effect. A 2025 survey of seven Canadian critical care transport organizations found universal use of competency checklists but variation in training and recertification; no organization reported the highest evaluation level of tracking patient outcomes related to transfusion. The study is small and specific, yet the management lesson is widely applicable: education programs should define how learning, observed behavior, and clinical outcomes will be evaluated before training begins.⁸

Scope should also be reviewed as workforce models evolve. The UK survey of pediatric critical care transport services found advanced clinical practitioners in nine of 12 regional services, with substantial variation in the share of transfers they led. This is evidence of one national model, not a template for every jurisdiction. Leaders considering expanded roles should address education, supervision, medical governance, role clarity, workload, career development, and outcome monitoring together.¹¹

Structured measurement table

Measure the mission without blaming the crew.

A useful dashboard connects process reliability, patient safety, workforce conditions, and learning.

Transport programs can generate abundant timestamps and still lack decision-ready information. A single average response time may mix urgent and nonurgent transfers, clinical stabilization and avoidable waiting, ground and air modes, short and long routes, or complete and incomplete requests. Measures should be stratified by mission class, patient population, origin, destination, time of day, route, and crew configuration when sample size and privacy allow.

Denominators must be defined before a target is chosen. “Handoff compliance” could mean a signed form, a complete set of fields, verbal acknowledgment, or observed transfer of critical information. “Equipment readiness” could mean a vehicle check at shift start or the patient-specific confirmation that power, oxygen, disposables, medication concentration, and interface compatibility meet the mission need. The distinction changes what the number means and which leader can act on it.

Figure 5 · Structured measurement table

Candidate transport reliability measures for local definition

Measure	Unit	Numerator and denominator	Owner	Cadence	Data source	Resources required	Limitations
Complete request before capability assignment	Percent	Requests with all locally required clinical and logistical fields / eligible requests reviewed	Transfer-center director	Weekly, reported monthly	Transfer-center record and audit	Field definitions, audit time, feedback loop	Documentation may not reflect verbal information; eligibility must be stable
Patient-specific capability match	Percent	Reviewed missions with documented crew, equipment, vehicle, and oversight match / reviewed missions	Transport clinical director	Monthly	Dispatch, clinical record, capability matrix	Mission taxonomy, reviewer training	Retrospective judgment; rare mission classes may have small samples
Predeparture exception resolution	Percent and count	Documented exceptions corrected or escalated before departure / predeparture exceptions identified	Mission operations lead	Weekly	Checklist, safety reports, dispatch notes	Nonpunitive reporting and clear escalation path	Depends on reporting culture; absence of reports is not proof of reliability
Delay by agreed cause	Minutes	Median and 90th percentile from ready-for-dispatch to departure, stratified by one primary cause code	Operations director	Monthly	Dispatch timestamps and validated cause code	Common time definitions, exception review	One cause may oversimplify complex delay; timestamps may be automatic or manual
Bedside handoff acceptance	Percent	Eligible missions with documented receiving-clinician acknowledgment / eligible completed missions	Nursing and receiving service	Monthly	Transport record and receiving acknowledgment	Shared handoff standard, observation sampling	A signature alone does not demonstrate information quality
Safety action closure	Percent and days	Assigned actions closed by due date / actions due; median days to verified closure	Quality and safety leader	Monthly	Safety system and action log	Named owners, due dates, validation standard	Closure can be administrative unless effectiveness is checked
Fit-for-duty escalation	Count and rate	Protected fatigue or workload escalations / staffed shifts or missions	Workforce and operations	Monthly	Scheduling and protected reports	Confidential route, replacement coverage	Low reporting may indicate fear rather than low risk; privacy is essential

Figure note. These are proposed management measures, not external benchmarks. Each organization must define inclusion, exclusion, mission class, numerator, denominator, owner, data source, privacy protections, and action threshold. Stratification should be used only when sample size supports responsible interpretation. Sources informing the measurement structure include references 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 17, 18, and 20.

Patient and family experience belongs on the dashboard. A UK study developed a nine-item experience measure from responses representing 1,798 pediatric critical care transport journeys. The tool is population-specific, but it demonstrates that experience can be measured rather than assumed. Local programs can ask whether families understood the reason for transfer, knew who was responsible, received updates, were treated respectfully, and understood what would happen at the destination.²⁰

Risk scores can support structured assessment but should not become automatic transport decisions. Prospective research developed a five-variable intrahospital transport score with modest discrimination, and later cluster analysis proposed patient groupings associated with different adverse-event patterns. These studies may help local teams identify variables worth capturing, but transport mode, population, setting, and workflow differ. External validation and clinical governance are prerequisites for operational use.^{10, 17}

A multidisciplinary critical care transport quality huddle reviews a de-identified route and equipment-readiness board in a bright operations room. — **Illustrative image.** Debriefing creates value only when defects and successful adaptations move to named owners, due dates, and verified action closure. Concept informed by the safety, human-factors, training, and quality-improvement evidence in references 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 18.

Workforce and capability

Build readiness that survives the rare event.

Competence is perishable when missions are infrequent, technology changes, or clinicians spend limited time in high-acuity practice.

Design sustainment around risk

Use the mission inventory to identify low-frequency, high-consequence tasks. Examples may include transport ventilation, vasoactive infusions, blood products, invasive devices, pediatric weight-based dosing, specialty equipment, or deterioration in a constrained environment.

Readiness studies in critical care air transport found that prior deployment experience and aspects of clinical practice related to simulation performance. Another large study of 2,576 course surveys found differences in pass rates by professional group and associations with training frequency. The military context is not directly transferable to civilian programs, but the evidence supports recurring assessment rather than lifetime assumptions about competence.^{9, 16}

Train the team, not only the individual

Transport failures can arise between roles even when each professional is technically skilled. Cross-sectional research on ICU nurses’ attitudes and experiences helps describe the practice conditions that training must address, but it does not establish that a particular training intervention improves outcomes. Programs should therefore test role clarity, communication, equipment setup, medication verification, and escalation under realistic constraints, then observe performance rather than relying on completion records.¹⁹

Debriefing should separate individual learning from system correction. If every scenario exposes the same missing connector, unclear medication label, or inaccessible policy, repeating the scenario without fixing the system transfers responsibility to the learner.

Protect speaking up

A transport nurse who pauses a mission for an unresolved risk is performing a safety function. Policies should define the stop condition, the escalation path, who adjudicates disagreement, how delay is documented, and how retaliation is prevented. Leaders should review pause events for system learning, not use them as evidence that the nurse lacked commitment.

Survey and qualitative studies of ICU and anesthesia nurses consistently emphasize preparation, routines, training, confidence, and the realities of high-risk transport. Leaders should include transport nurses when standards, equipment, staffing models, and post-event reviews are designed.^{12, 13}

Keep clinical outcomes in context

Studies in military air transport have evaluated ventilation compliance and provider experience. One retrospective cohort did not find a relationship between mission count and lung-protective ventilation compliance after adjustment, but did identify other associations. That result warns against using volume alone as a competence proxy. Process compliance, patient mix, clinical specialty, training, documentation, and equipment all shape observed performance.¹⁵

A strong readiness program combines direct observation, simulation, clinical exposure, case review, and outcome monitoring rather than relying on a single count.

Proposed implementation timeline

Strengthen one mission class in 90 days.

Choose a high-risk or high-volume route. Include frontline transport nurses from the first design session through the final decision.

The pilot should begin with a written scope. Define included missions, exclusions, the current baseline, readiness elements, delay definitions, handoff acceptance, reporting protections, data owner, and executive sponsor. If the organization cannot state what is being tested, it will be unable to interpret the result.

Figure 6 · Proposed Gantt-style timeline

Ninety-day mission reliability pilot

Workstream	Owner	Days 1–15	Days 16–30	Days 31–45	Days 46–60	Days 61–75	Days 76–90	Deliverable and dependency
Scope and baseline	Executive sponsor and quality	Define	Audit					Approved mission class, definitions, baseline; required before pilot
Workflow and capability matrix	Transport clinical director	Map	Design	Gate				Future-state flow, stop rules, crew and equipment match
Tools and training	Education and operations		Build	Test	Launch			Checklist, job aids, scenarios; depends on approved flow
Limited pilot	Frontline nurse lead			Start	Run	Run		Weekly exception review and rapid correction
Measurement and learning	Quality analyst	Specify	Validate	Monitor	Monitor	Analyze	Gate	Decision-ready results, limitations, action log
Adopt, revise, or stop	Executive review group						Decide	Documented decision, owner, next review date

Figure note. Proposed timeline. Review gates occur after future-state design and at day 90. Dependencies are explicit: training follows workflow approval; the pilot follows tool testing; the final decision follows analysis and frontline review. Deliverables should include the approved capability matrix, exception log, measured results, limitations, and action-closure record. Sources informing the implementation approach include references 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, and 19.

During the pilot, review exceptions quickly enough to change conditions while staff still remember the event. Invite the sending team, transport team, receiving service, medical control, operations, and safety when their interface is involved. Record successful adaptations as well as defects. A workaround that prevented harm may reveal expertise worth incorporating into the standard, but only after the organization evaluates its safety and resource implications.

At day 90, leaders should resist the pressure to declare success from activity alone. Ask whether the included missions had better request completeness, capability match, predeparture exception resolution, handoff acceptance, or action closure. Review balancing measures such as delays, staff workload, missed data, and unintended barriers. If the sample is too small for outcome conclusions, state that limitation and use process reliability plus qualitative evidence to decide whether to continue learning.

The final decision should be one of three choices: adopt the tested workflow for the defined mission class, revise and run another limited cycle, or stop because the intervention did not create sufficient value or introduced unacceptable burden. Every choice should name the accountable leader and the next review date.

Leadership close

Recognize the nurse by strengthening the mission.

Critical Care Transport Nurses Day is a leadership checkpoint for the systems that support expert nursing judgment across every mile and every internal route. Thank the professionals. Then make the request, capability match, equipment, handoff, escalation path, workforce protection, and learning system worthy of their work.

Authoritative resources

ASTNA confirms the official observance name and annual February 18 date. No official 2026 theme was identified in the reviewed official sources. The BCEN credential count is dated March 1, 2026 and should not be interpreted as the full critical care transport nursing workforce. Local clinical decisions must follow applicable laws, licensure, medical direction, accreditation requirements, organizational policy, and patient-specific judgment.

Scholarly references

Peer-reviewed evidence

References are ordered newest first. Public DOI or journal links are provided; private research-platform links are not exposed.

Kapur M, Li K, Brown A, Huo Z, Booth J, Knight P, et al. (2026). Real-time prediction of cardiorespiratory deterioration during paediatric critical care transport using interpretable machine learning. PLOS Digital Health, 5(5), e0001410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001410
Amoroso J, Ernst J, Kunze KL, Butterfield RJ. (2026). Medical line management in critical care transportations: A novel securement device. Clinical Nursing Research, 35(4), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/10547738261429348
Medina-Valles M, Laso-Alonso AE, Medina-Villanueva A, Modesto-I-Alapont V, Zuazua Rico D, Maestro-Gonzalez A. (2026). Validation of the SCOPETAS scale for nursing professionals in pediatric interhospital transport. Nursing Reports, 16(2), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep16020067
Lee D-H, Choi S-J. (2026). [Development and effects of an intrahospital transport checklist for intensive care unit nurses: A quasi-experimental study]. Journal of Korean Critical Care Nursing, 19(1), 1–14.
Kapur M, Li K, Brown A, Huo Z, Knight P, Davies G, Ramnarayan P. (2025). Identification of physiological adverse events using continuous vital signs monitoring during paediatric critical care transport: A novel data-driven approach. PLOS Digital Health, 4(9), e0000822. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000822
Zhang Y-B, Ma D, Li R, Wei Y-J, Wang X-Y, Sun Y, et al. (2025). A critical review and evidence mapping of guidelines for transport of critically ill patients. Nursing in Critical Care, 30(4), e70124. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.70124
Haydar B. (2025). Error traps in the intrahospital transport of critically ill and anesthetized children. Paediatric Anaesthesia, 35(7), 497–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.15112
Dion P-M, Pan A, Beckett A, Singh K, Greene A, Benhamed A, et al. (2025). Prehospital transfusion training in Canada: A national survey of critical care transport organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 33(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-025-01435-x
Leib N, Cheney M, Burkhardt JN, Nelson E, Diffley S, Salvator A, et al. (2025). Impact of rank, provider specialty, and unit sustainment training frequency on military critical care air transport team readiness. Military Medicine, 190(1–2), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usae113
An Y, Cao K, Li F, Lu Q, Guan Y-M, Lu Z-H, et al. (2025). A new classification for emergency critically ill patients and analysis of their adverse events during intrahospital transport: A cluster analysis. Nursing in Critical Care, 30(2), e13099. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.13099
Herring S, Riphagen S, Bickell FE. (2025). Advanced clinical practitioners in paediatric critical care transport services. Nursing in Critical Care, 30(2), e13224. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.13224
Skoglund K, Bescher M, Ekwall S, Hammar LM. (2024). Intrahospital transport of critically ill patients: Nurse anaesthetists’ and specialist ICU nurses’ experiences. Nursing in Critical Care, 29(5), 1142–1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.13053
Dong J, Yi Y, Zhu X, Zhang H. (2024). Status of knowledge, attitude and practice of clinical nurses towards the intrahospital transport of critically ill patients: A cross-sectional study. Nursing Open, 11(6), e2172. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.2172
Li S, Hou S, Deng X, Chen S, Wang H, Tang L, et al. (2024). Reliability and validity assessment of the Chinese version of the Intrahospital Transport Safety Scale in intensive care units. BMC Nursing, 23, 296. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01906-z
Davis WT, Strilka R, Valdez-Delgado KK, Burkhardt J, Medellin KL, Arana AA, et al. (2024). Impact of en route critical care provider experience on lung protective ventilation compliance during air transport of combat wounded. Military Medicine, 189(Suppl 3), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usae059
Brown DJ, Frasier L, Robinson FE, Cheney M, Davis WT, Salvator A, et al. (2023). Relevance of deployment experience and clinical practice characteristics on military critical care air transport team readiness: A study of simulation construct validity. Military Medicine, 188(7–8), 1376–1381. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usac142
An Y, Tian Z-R, Li F, Lu Q, Guan Y-M, Ma Z-F, et al. (2023). Establishment of a simplified score for predicting risk during intrahospital transport of critical patients: A prospective cohort study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 32(7–8), 1125–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16337
Zhang W, Lv J, Zhao J, Ma X, Li X, Gu H, et al. (2022). Proactive risk assessment of intrahospital transport of critically ill patients from emergency department to intensive care unit in a teaching hospital and its implications. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 31(17–18), 2539–2552. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16072
Song Y, Zhao Q, Yang M, Xie X, Gong M, Chen H. (2022). Intrahospital transport of critically ill patients: A cross-sectional survey of nurses’ attitudes and experiences in adult intensive care units. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 78(9), 2775–2784. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15179
Evans REC, Barber V, Seaton S, Draper ES, Rajah F, Pagel C, et al. (2022). Development of a parent experience measure for paediatric critical care transport teams. Nursing in Critical Care, 27(3), 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12648