Health Unit Coordinator Day | August 23, 2026
Health Unit Coordinator Day 2026: Build a Reliable Unit Communication and Flow System
Recognition becomes credible when the coordination work that holds an inpatient unit together is visible, supported, and connected to safe information flow, patient movement, and team reliability. This executive brief turns that principle into a focused 90-day operating test.
Research base: Institutional health-research library search of full-text, peer-reviewed literature published August 2021 through August 2026, sorted newest first. The evidence informs management choices. It does not establish universal staffing ratios, time targets, or clinical rules.
From appreciation to operating support
Recognize the role by making coordination work visible
Health unit coordinators often work where demand, information, and movement converge. Depending on the organization, the role may be called unit coordinator, unit clerk, ward clerk, ward administrator, medical secretary, or another locally defined title. The exact duties differ, but the operating purpose is recognizable: receive signals, verify what is needed, route information to the right person, support documentation, help organize movement and services, and keep the unit from losing track of unfinished work.
That work can look routine when it succeeds. A call reaches the right clinician. A transport request is clarified. A family question finds an accountable owner. A diagnostic service receives the needed information. A discharge document is ready when the receiving setting accepts the handoff. Each task may be small, yet the combined pattern determines whether the unit behaves like a connected system or a collection of interrupted professionals.
The role should not become an undefined container for every task that others cannot complete. Appreciation without role clarity can increase hidden workload. A reliable design states which requests the coordinator may complete, which require verification, which belong to licensed clinical staff, and which must be escalated immediately. It also specifies who provides backup during breaks, surges, vacancies, downtime, and high-acuity events.
One directly relevant 2026 qualitative study of 29 participants at a general hospital described medical secretaries as contributors to communication, documentation, workflow, digital-system use, and information governance. Participants also identified workload pressure, limited training, and role ambiguity as barriers.15 The study comes from one rural Saudi hospital and cannot define every health unit coordinator role. It does, however, support a practical leadership question: is the organization relying on important coordination work without giving the role adequate definition, staffing, training, authority, and recognition?
Clear intake
Requests arrive through known channels with enough information to identify urgency and the correct owner.
Safe routing
The coordinator acts within scope, confirms receipt, and escalates clinical or operational uncertainty.
Visible closure
Due time, status, acceptance, exception, and recovery action are observable without duplicate chasing.
Supported role
Training, coverage, technology, psychological safety, and feedback match the work the organization expects.
Recognition should include the conditions needed for sound performance. A cross-sectional study of 597 nurses in five Greek tertiary hospitals found that reported error-management responses were often limited, while participants pointed to workload, staffing shortages, weak orientation, and limited training.17 Those findings concern nursing administration rather than health unit coordinators, but they reinforce the broader system principle: safety work depends on supportive structures, not personal vigilance alone.
Use the evidence without overstating it
Direct role evidence is limited, so system evidence must be labeled
The search found a small number of recent studies that directly included medical-secretary or comparable administrative-coordination work. Most recent literature addresses the systems around that work: handoffs, electronic records, patient flow, workload, interprofessional communication, escalation, implementation, and patient experience. This is a meaningful evidence gap. It means leaders should not claim that a general handoff study proves the effect of a health unit coordinator. It also means local evaluation is essential.
The 20-record set therefore has two layers. Direct role evidence helps define contribution and strain. Supporting system evidence identifies design features that coordinators interact with, such as structured communication, accessible records, shared situational awareness, staffing response, and closed-loop improvement. The public article keeps those layers separate and treats every proposed workflow as a locally testable management model.
| Design group | Count | Appropriate use in this brief |
|---|---|---|
| Qualitative, mixed, or service experience | 9 | Identify workflow friction, role boundaries, experience, implementation needs, and questions for local testing. |
| Cross-sectional, cohort, or survey | 5 | Describe associations or patterns in a defined context without assuming causation. |
| Review or synthesis | 3 | Map evidence and recurring design considerations while respecting review scope and study quality. |
| Implementation, project, or design | 3 | Inform prototype design, training, and governance without treating one implementation as universally transferable. |
Evidence boundary: These are counts of selected records, not effect sizes or grades of certainty. Classification is mutually exclusive for display even when a study could reasonably fit more than one category.
Structured communication helps, but structure is not a substitute for ownership
A 2026 systematic review of ISBAR and SBAR-based nursing handover tools concluded that structured approaches can improve consistency and reduce communication gaps, while implementation quality, training, local adaptation, and adherence remain important.3 The executive implication is not to add another form. It is to define the minimum information for a given handoff, the accountable sender and receiver, the acceptance signal, and the response when the handoff is incomplete.
A 2025 before-and-after study of 1,437 surgical safety checklists reported improved completeness after successive leadership communication, department-level reinforcement, education, and audit feedback.20 The study concerns a surgical checklist at one Croatian hospital, not a unit coordinator intervention. Its useful signal is that low-cost administrative and communication support can improve adherence when leaders make expectations visible and review the result.
Digital tools can reduce or redistribute friction
A qualitative study of physicians using multiple electronic prescribing platforms described safety and workflow benefits alongside concerns about interoperability, usability, training, alert burden, and communication.1 A mixed-methods primary-care study associated electronic medical record use with care coordination and patient engagement while also identifying implementation and usability considerations.11 A shared-viewer platform project similarly explored how common access to information could support cross-sector collaboration in diabetes care.12 None of these studies proves that adding a screen improves inpatient coordination. Together they support a more disciplined design question: does the technology present the right operational information to the right role at the right time, and does it preserve a recovery route when data are missing or systems are unavailable?
A 2026 scoping review of artificial intelligence in emergency-department triage described potential applications but also raised questions about validation, bias, transparency, integration, and clinical governance.6 Health unit coordinators should not be expected to interpret or override clinical decision tools. If automation creates queues, alerts, or routing recommendations that affect their work, leaders must define what the information means, who validates it, who can act, and how staff report a suspected error.
Patient flow is a whole-system property
An infusion-center nursing survey examined the organizational and workload implications of treatment delivery, illustrating how clinical schedules, chair time, staffing, preparation, and patient needs interact.2 A healthcare operational command-centre design paper proposed using integrated operational data to support real-time care coordination.4 These records address different settings and methods, yet both warn against treating flow as a single department's speed. A coordinator can help make status and next actions visible, but cannot manufacture staffed beds, transport capacity, diagnostic availability, or receiving-team acceptance.
Patient and caregiver experience studies add another layer. A 2026 care-pathway study used a life-events calendar to reveal blind spots that conventional measurement can miss.7 A qualitative study of kidney-stone care delays identified patient-described barriers that may not be obvious in administrative data.10 A national outpatient survey found lower satisfaction in waiting-time, accessibility, and administrative-support domains than in several other domains, with differences across demographic and regional groups.16 These findings do not establish a unit target. They support including patient and caregiver understanding, accessibility, and burden in the operating review.
One closed loop
Design every request as an accountable coordination cycle
A reliable unit does not depend on one person remembering every interruption. It uses a small set of visible states that people can understand across shifts: received, verified, routed, accepted, completed, or escalated. The information needed at each state should be proportionate to the risk. A routine supply request and a change in patient condition do not belong in the same queue or follow the same escalation rule.
Escalation rule: A coordinator should not resolve clinical ambiguity. A concerning change, unclear clinical instruction, missing essential information, or overdue high-risk action moves to the locally designated licensed or operational owner immediately.
Design status: This is a management model synthesized from the evidence. Local teams must define request types, urgency levels, documentation, backup coverage, and emergency exceptions.
The loop begins before a message is sent. Leaders should specify which channels are appropriate for urgent, routine, confidential, and cross-organizational communication. If the unit uses phones, secure messaging, task lists, bed-management tools, paper downtime logs, and verbal huddles, the design should state which source is authoritative for which purpose. Staff should not have to monitor every channel continuously to remain safe.
Verification protects both the patient and the role. Before routing, the coordinator needs enough information to identify the request, the intended recipient, the expected response, and whether a higher-risk pathway applies. Verification is not a clinical assessment. It is a controlled pause that prevents an incomplete or misdirected request from becoming invisible. Where identity or privacy is uncertain, the approved verification procedure should take precedence over speed.
Routing requires a named role rather than a vague department. The primary owner, backup owner, expected response window, and escalation level should be defined by request type. The receiving role must be able to accept, decline with reason, or redirect without sending the coordinator into an endless search. A multidisciplinary-conference study found that clinicians valued interdisciplinary communication and collegiality while describing workload and access challenges; administrative support was among the features associated with successful participation.19 The setting is specialized cancer care, but the operational lesson travels: coordination improves when the meeting or handoff has prepared inputs, adequate representation, and support for the work around the conversation.
Closure should reach the people who need to know. A task may be technically complete while the patient, family, bedside team, or next service remains uncertain. The closed-loop definition should therefore state who receives confirmation and what counts as an exception. Repeated exceptions are not personal failures to work around forever. They are signals for the unit's improvement system.
Use locally: Review actual cases with frontline staff and patient or caregiver partners. Do not assume that every listed cause exists on every unit.
Shared work, explicit boundaries
Build a unit coordination system around the patient and frontline team
The health unit coordinator is a central connector, not the sole owner of patient flow. Nursing, medical staff, bed management, transport, diagnostic departments, pharmacy, environmental services, food and nutrition, rehabilitation, information technology, interpreter services, and receiving organizations all own parts of the route. The operating design should show those interfaces and the decision rights at each one.
Governance around every interface: scope, privacy, accessibility, technology, staffing, training, safety escalation, data definitions, and improvement review.
Local variation: Titles, reporting relationships, and decision rights differ. The diagram names functions, not a required organization chart.
Role clarity should be written at the level of common work, not as a generic job-description paragraph. For each request family, define what information is required, what the coordinator may do independently, what requires confirmation, what belongs to a licensed clinician, and what triggers immediate escalation. Include the non-routine conditions that expose weak design: duplicate names, changed orders, missing consent, language needs, family conflict, isolation precautions, security concerns, downtime, surge capacity, and a receiving service that has not accepted the patient.
| Work type | Coordinator contribution | Accountable owner | Escalate when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routine unit request | Verify request, route, record status, confirm closure | Named operational or clinical service | Required information is missing, no acceptance occurs, or due time is at risk |
| Patient movement | Confirm nonclinical readiness elements and connect flow participants | Licensed care team and patient-flow owner | Clinical readiness is uncertain, destination declines, or safety condition changes |
| Results or information | Route through the approved channel and confirm receipt | Qualified clinician or designated receiving role | Critical, unexpected, misdirected, overdue, or privacy-sensitive information appears |
| Patient or family question | Clarify the requested help and connect the appropriate owner | Role qualified to answer and document | Concern suggests deterioration, harm, complaint, consent issue, or unmet communication need |
| Downtime or surge | Use the approved backup log, status board, and call tree | Unit leader and incident or downtime structure | Tracking cannot be maintained, workload exceeds capacity, or urgent work is competing |
Training should combine systems knowledge, communication practice, privacy, accessibility, conflict de-escalation, technology, downtime, and role-specific simulation. A 2026 interprofessional training project involving medical students and trainee anesthesia assistants used a structured sequence to support collaboration and role understanding.9 It is an educational project in a specific setting, not evidence for a universal curriculum. It supports testing training in the real interfaces where roles must coordinate under time pressure.
Leaders should also protect psychological safety. Staff need a simple way to say that workload is unsafe, an instruction is unclear, a channel is failing, or a workaround has become routine. A qualitative ICU study of nurse-driven infection-prevention protocols identified barriers and facilitators related to knowledge, workflow, resources, teamwork, and organizational support.8 The clinical topic differs, but the implementation signal is relevant: a policy becomes reliable only when the work environment enables staff to use it.
Recognition should not depend on heroic availability. Coverage plans need to address breaks, meal periods, vacancy, onboarding, peak admission and discharge times, nights, weekends, and downtime. A cross-sectional study of public and private ophthalmology practice in New Zealand associated the public setting with poorer workload control, greater disorder, and higher burnout symptoms, while administrative support and autonomy were identified as possible improvement areas.18 It does not measure coordinator staffing, but it reinforces the relationship between administrative systems and clinician work experience.
A scorecard that supports recovery
Measure reliability without turning the role into a stopwatch
Unit-coordination measurement should reveal whether the system closes important loops. A narrow productivity dashboard can create pressure to process more messages while hiding misrouting, duplicate work, unsafe interruption, inaccessible communication, or the absence of a receiving owner. Measures should connect access, workflow reliability, safety, workforce experience, patient understanding, and equity.
| Domain | Example measure | Local denominator | Stratify or balance with | Target rule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intake quality | Requests arriving with the required identity, purpose, urgency, and contact information | Eligible requests sampled | Channel, shift, request type, source | Set after baseline and risk review |
| Routing reliability | Requests accepted by the correct named owner without duplicate redirection | Requests requiring routing | Service, shift, urgency, redirection reason | Improve accuracy without discouraging safe escalation |
| Loop closure | Priority actions confirmed complete or escalated by the locally defined due time | Priority actions due in the period | Action type, unit, shift, failure reason | Use risk-specific times, not one universal clock |
| Safety and recovery | High-risk misses, near misses, and overdue actions receiving documented recovery | Reviewed high-risk exceptions | Cause group, harm potential, recovery type | Increase reporting quality while reducing repeated system causes |
| Workforce | Staff report role clarity, manageable channel load, and confidence in escalation | Respondents at the defined interval | Role, shift, tenure, employment status | Pair with workload and coverage data |
| Experience and equity | Patients or caregivers report knowing the next step and who to contact | Respondents at the selected transition | Language, disability, age, digital access, caregiver involvement | Co-design questions and response options |
No universal target is implied. Define numerator, denominator, exclusions, time window, data source, owner, privacy protection, and balancing measures before comparing units or periods.
Use measures that lead to an action
A real-time command centre can display status across a system, but a dashboard alone does not create authority or capacity.4 Every alert should identify who reviews it, what options are available, and when escalation changes level. If the same alert remains unresolved because no staffed bed, transporter, clinician, interpreter, or receiving service is available, the metric should expose that constraint rather than imply that the coordinator failed.
The ESINEA cohort evaluation studied a screening approach for identifying patient-safety incidents and adverse events in hospitalized patients.13 Its specific method requires independent appraisal before use. The relevant governance lesson is that safety detection depends on explicit definitions and a reproducible review method. Coordination measures need the same discipline. A missed handoff, late response, duplicate request, wrong recipient, and unsafe delay are not interchangeable events.
Combine operational data with lived experience
Operational timestamps can show when a request entered and left a queue. They cannot fully show whether a patient understood the next step, whether a caregiver carried unexpected work, whether a staff member used an unsafe workaround, or whether a person with limited English proficiency could access the process. The care-pathway and delay studies in this evidence set demonstrate why experience can reveal system blind spots.710
A telemedicine qualitative study that included a medical secretary found that digital care changed professional boundaries and introduced system friction alongside flexibility.14 The direct relevance is limited because the service was an outpatient endometriosis program. The transferable question is strong: when technology changes how requests enter the system, has the organization redesigned roles, training, supervision, technical support, and fallback communication, or has it simply added another channel?
Six questions for the monthly executive review
- Which request type most often arrived without enough information to route safely?
- Where did work wait because no accountable receiver accepted it?
- Which alerts produced recovery, and which only created more tracking?
- When did the coordinator's workload or scope become unsafe or unclear?
- Did aggregate improvement hide a worse experience for a shift, role, or patient group?
- What will be stopped, simplified, redesigned, or scaled before the next review?
A focused implementation cadence
Use 90 days to prove ownership, recovery, and learning
A credible pilot starts with one unit and one high-friction request family, such as patient movement, diagnostic preparation, discharge acceptance, results routing, or after-hours service coordination. The scope should be large enough to expose real interfaces and small enough that the team can inspect individual cases. The goal is not to redesign the hospital in one quarter. It is to test whether clearer intake, named ownership, closure, and recovery reduce preventable ambiguity without shifting burden elsewhere.
Planning boundary: The timing is illustrative. Clinical governance, privacy, labor agreements, technology change control, workforce capacity, and safety review may require a different cadence.
Days 1-15: define the pilot and protect the role
Name an executive sponsor, unit clinical leader, operational lead, health unit coordinator partner, patient or caregiver partner, data owner, information-technology representative, and the services that receive the selected requests. Write the problem as an observable failure. Examples include repeated redirection, overdue transport acceptance, discharge packets assembled before the next setting accepts, or urgent messages entering a routine channel.
Create a one-page charter that states the request family, population, unit, shifts, scope boundaries, exclusions, approved channels, clinical escalation, privacy requirements, coverage, data definitions, and stop conditions. Record what will not change during the pilot. A role-clarity test is incomplete if the team improves the queue while adding undocumented work to the coordinator, nurse, patient, or caregiver.
Days 8-30: map real work and specify the loop
Review recent cases with coordinators, nurses, physicians, ancillary services, receiving teams, and patient or caregiver partners. Observe the unit across more than one shift. Identify every channel used, what information arrives, where staff verify it, how priority is signaled, who can accept the work, and how closure is communicated. Capture workarounds without blame. A workaround often identifies a mismatch between the formal design and the work people must accomplish.
For the selected request family, specify the minimum information, named primary owner, backup, due-time rule, acceptance signal, completion signal, and exception path. Use existing systems where possible. If a new field or tool is proposed, explain which existing step it replaces. Test accessibility for staff and patients who use assistive technology, interpretation, alternative communication, or non-digital options.
Days 22-75: pilot in small batches and review exceptions weekly
Start with a limited set of cases or defined time blocks. Conduct a short daily or shift-based review while the design is new, then a weekly multidisciplinary exception review. Examine every high-risk miss and a sample of ordinary requests. Ask whether information was sufficient, the correct owner accepted it, the coordinator stayed within scope, closure reached the right people, and the fallback worked.
Quality-improvement literature in pediatric emergency care emphasizes structured methods that fit local resources and context.5 The record is not evidence for this exact pilot, but the method is appropriate: test small, make changes visible, use balancing measures, and avoid assuming that a design from another organization can be copied unchanged.
Days 61-90: evaluate and make an explicit decision
Compare the pilot with its own baseline using the pre-specified definitions. Examine results by request type, shift, service, and patient-access variables where lawful and statistically appropriate. Review coordinator workload, interruptions, training burden, overtime, duplicate documentation, clinical-team experience, patient understanding, safety events, and technology failures. Small numbers require caution and privacy protection.
The decision should be scale, adapt and retest, pause, or stop. Scale only when the team can describe which components produced value, what resources are required, and what must change for another unit. Adapt when the core idea remains sound but role boundaries, technology, timing, or coverage are not ready. Pause when an important dependency is unresolved. Stop when the pilot adds burden, hides risk, or does not improve the selected problem.
A practical observance commitment
For Health Unit Coordinator Day 2026, select one recurring coordination failure and make five things visible within 90 days: the required information, the accountable sender, the accountable receiver, the due-time rule, and the recovery action when the loop does not close.
The leadership standard
Honor the role by building a system worthy of the work
Health unit coordinators help translate a continuous stream of requests, information, movement, and uncertainty into organized action. Their contribution is easiest to overlook when the system works. Health Unit Coordinator Day offers a better form of recognition: make that work observable, define it responsibly, resource it adequately, and include coordinators in the improvement decisions that shape their daily practice.
The evidence does not support one universal role description or staffing model. It supports a disciplined set of questions. Are channels clear? Is clinical ambiguity protected by escalation? Does every priority action have a receiver? Can staff see closure? Does technology reduce friction or add another inbox? Are patients and caregivers included in the transition? Does the scorecard expose capacity constraints instead of blaming the person who tracks them?
A reliable unit-coordination system does more than move tasks. It helps the team preserve attention for clinical work, recover from predictable failure, and keep patients and families from carrying the burden of disconnected services. That is a meaningful observance: recognition joined to role clarity, safe communication, practical measures, and leadership accountability.
Newest-first peer-reviewed evidence
References
Search completed through an institutional health-research library on August 27, 2026. Records were limited to full text and peer-reviewed publication within August 2021 through August 2026, then sorted newest first. DOI links open the DOI record. Where no DOI was indexed, a PMID link or complete database citation is provided.
- Aldhafeeri F, Wilson A, Larkin S. Transforming quality use of medicines in Saudi Arabia: physician perspectives on electronic prescribing systems. Frontiers in Digital Health. 2026;8:1812544. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1812544
- Campobasso M, Mutta E, Moscato CG, et al. Optimizing Infusion Center Efficiency in Multiple Sclerosis: A Nursing Multicenter Survey on Organizational Impact of Ublituximab. Healthcare. 2026;14(14). doi:10.3390/healthcare14142094
- Rasiya A, Raheem UA. Shift Transition Communication Among Nurses: A Systematic Review of ISBAR and SBAR-Based Structured Handover Tools. Nursing Open. 2026;13(7):e70655. doi:10.1002/nop2.70655
- Ladega F, Kumar G, Jones S, et al. Designing a Healthcare Operational Command Centre Architecture for Real-Time Care Coordination. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2026;338:232-236. doi:10.3233/SHTI260836
- Onyejesi CD, Kebede A, Abady E, et al. Quality Improvement Initiatives in Pediatric Emergency Care in Low-Resource Settings: Addressing Patient Safety and Outcomes. International Journal of Pediatrics. 2026;2026:6683096. doi:10.1155/ijpe/6683096
- Souza LL, de Oliveira YCN, Campos da Costa LC, et al. Artificial Intelligence in emergency department triage: A scoping review. PLOS ONE. 2026;21(6):e0352338. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0352338
- Lutaud R, Mirouse J, Borg M, et al. Patient Experience and Caregiver Involvement in COVID-19 Care Pathways: Revealing System Blind Spots Through a Life-Events Calendar Approach. Healthcare. 2026;14(12). doi:10.3390/healthcare14121800
- Alotaibi NE, Alsadoun AS. Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Nurse-Driven Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Prevention Protocols in Intensive Care Units in Saudi Arabia: A Qualitative Study. Healthcare. 2026;14(12). doi:10.3390/healthcare14121741
- Massoth G, Wittmann M, Tölle A, et al. Interprofessional education of final-year medical students and trainee anaesthesia assistants (IPAPA): a project report on an interprofessional training sequence on induction of anaesthesia. GMS Journal for Medical Education. 2026;43(5):Doc62. doi:10.3205/zma001856
- Ibrahim II, Zager DL, Charondo LB, et al. Patient perspectives on delays in care for kidney stones: A qualitative analysis. PLOS ONE. 2026;21(6):e0341787. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341787
- Devira SM, Antonio F, Widjanarko D. Enhancing Care Coordination and Patient Engagement Through Electronic Medical Record Utilization in Primary Healthcare: A Mixed-Methods Study. Healthcare. 2026;14(11). doi:10.3390/healthcare14111458
- Klausen MB, Thomsen AS, Sandbæk A, et al. Enhancing Cross-Sector Collaboration in Diabetes Care Through a Shared-Viewer Platform: Clinical Experiences with SAMBLIK-Diabetes. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2026;336:1730-1735. doi:10.3233/SHTI260521
- Dueñas Lopez FC, Fernández-Arroyo García A, Rivera Núñez MA, et al. The ESINEA Study: A Novel Screening Tool for Identifying Patient Safety Incidents and Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients: An Index-Date Cohort Evaluation. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. 2026;22:565087. doi:10.2147/TCRM.S565087
- Feenstra MM, Sidenius A, Nielsen C, et al. Healthcare Professionals' Experiences of Telemedicine Supporting Outpatient Endometriosis Care: A Qualitative Study of Tele-Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2026;23(5). doi:10.3390/ijerph23050671
- Al-Rashidi A, Alhur A, Al-Anazi A, et al. The Role of Medical Secretaries in Hospital Workflow, Communication, and Health Information Management: A Qualitative Study at Al-Hait General Hospital, Saudi Arabia. Georgian Medical News. 2026;(373):109-118. PMID:42289119
- El Dalatony MM, Almalki AO, Alabdulmunim AM, et al. Assessment of Patient Satisfaction Levels and Determinants in Outpatient Clinics of Ministry of Health Tertiary Hospitals in Saudi Arabia: A Survey Analysis. Journal of Patient Experience. 2026;13:23743735251406343. doi:10.1177/23743735251406343
- Pappa D, Evangelou E, Koutelekos I, et al. Management of Errors by Nursing Administration in Greek Hospitals. International Journal of Caring Sciences. 2026;19(1):132-140.
- Sutedja T, Botha V, Insull E. Work satisfaction, stress and burnout in New Zealand ophthalmologists: a comparison of public hospital and private practice. New Zealand Medical Journal. 2025;138(1623):73-81. doi:10.26635/6965.7067
- Clement E, Alam A, Lange C, et al. The Impact of Multidisciplinary Conference on Clinicians. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2025;32(10):7344-7350. doi:10.1245/s10434-025-17979-2
- Krstulović J, Hrgović Z, Krešo A, et al. Interventions to Improve Compliance to Surgical Safety Checklist Use: Before-and-After Study at a Tertiary Public Hospital in Croatia. Healthcare. 2025;13(16). doi:10.3390/healthcare13161959