Health Unit Coordinator Recognition Week | August 23-29, 2026
Health Unit Coordinator Recognition Week 2026: Turn Recognition into a Seven-Day Reliability and Workforce Improvement Cycle
A week of recognition becomes credible when leaders connect appreciation with role clarity, safer work design, professional development, closed-loop coordination, and an accountable 90-day improvement 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, performance targets, job descriptions, or clinical rules.
Recognition that changes the work
Use the week to convert appreciation into operating support
Health Unit Coordinator Recognition Week can be more than a calendar event. It can be a structured opportunity to listen to the people who organize unit communication, surface work that has become invisible, and make one leadership commitment that improves daily conditions. Depending on the organization, the role may be called health unit coordinator, unit clerk, ward clerk, ward administrator, medical secretary, or another local title. Duties differ, but the role commonly sits where calls, records, requests, patient movement, visitors, service interfaces, and interruptions converge.
That contribution is easy to overlook because successful coordination often appears as an absence of problems. A request reaches the right person. A receiving department has the needed information. A family question finds an accountable owner. A transfer is tracked. A downtime log remains usable. A clinician can focus on clinical work because operational messages are organized. The benefit is distributed across the unit, while the cognitive and emotional load may remain concentrated in the coordinator role.
A recognition program should not romanticize that load. Calling someone the person who keeps everything together can sound appreciative while normalizing unclear scope, inadequate coverage, excessive interruptions, or dependence on personal memory. The better message is specific: the organization sees the coordination work, will define it responsibly, will protect clinical boundaries, will provide the tools and development the role requires, and will review whether the system is asking too much of one person.
One directly relevant 2026 qualitative study of 29 participants at a general hospital described medical secretaries as contributors to workflow, communication, documentation, digital-system use, and information governance. Participants also identified workload pressure, limited training, and role ambiguity.15 The study comes from one rural Saudi hospital and cannot define every health unit coordinator position. It does support making role clarity, training, workload, and professional visibility part of the observance rather than limiting the week to symbolic appreciation.
Specific
Name the coordination contribution and the outcomes it supports instead of offering generic praise.
Participatory
Let coordinators describe real work, workarounds, strain, development goals, and improvement priorities.
Protective
Clarify scope, coverage, clinical escalation, privacy, accessibility, and psychological safety.
Accountable
End the week with an owner, measure, resources, review date, and decision rule for one 90-day test.
The week should recognize the role without claiming that one position owns every coordination outcome. Patient flow, safe communication, digital usability, discharge readiness, and patient experience are whole-system responsibilities. The coordinator can make information and next actions more visible, but cannot create staffed beds, diagnostic capacity, transport availability, interpreter coverage, clinical decisions, or a receiving service's acceptance. Credible recognition names both the contribution and the constraints.
Evidence with explicit limits
Use a layered evidence base and test the design locally
The recent peer-reviewed literature contains limited direct evaluation of the health unit coordinator role. A small direct layer addresses medical-secretary or administrative coordination work. A broader supporting layer examines systems that coordinators interact with, including handoffs, electronic records, patient flow, interprofessional collaboration, error management, workload, safety improvement, and patient experience. That evidence can inform questions and safeguards, but it cannot prove the independent effect of a coordinator or justify a universal recognition program.
The selected 20-record set is intentionally newest-first. It includes qualitative and mixed-methods work that helps leaders understand roles and implementation, surveys and cohort studies that describe patterns, reviews that synthesize defined bodies of literature, and improvement or design reports that provide testable operational ideas. It is not a meta-analysis, a staffing study, or a formal certainty grade. Local baseline measurement and frontline participation remain essential.
| 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 recurring considerations while respecting the review question, methods, and source quality. |
| Implementation, project, or design | 3 | Inform prototypes, governance, training, and local evaluation without assuming transferability. |
Evidence boundary: These are counts of selected records, not effect sizes. Categories are mutually exclusive for display even when a record could reasonably fit more than one group.
Communication evidence supports design, not ceremony
A 2026 systematic review of ISBAR and SBAR-based nursing handover tools concluded that structured approaches can improve consistency and reduce communication gaps, while training, local adaptation, adherence, and implementation quality remain important.3 That finding does not mean a recognition week should introduce another form. It supports using the week to test whether common requests contain the minimum information, reach a named receiver, receive an acceptance signal, and follow a defined recovery route when incomplete.
A 2025 before-and-after surgical checklist study reported improved completeness after leadership communication, departmental reinforcement, education, and audit feedback.20 It was a checklist intervention in one Croatian hospital, not a coordinator study. Its practical signal is that visible expectations and feedback can help convert policy into practice. Recognition can follow the same principle by joining public appreciation to a specific operating commitment that leaders review after the event.
Technology should reduce channel burden
Recent digital-health studies describe both opportunity and friction. Physicians using electronic prescribing platforms reported safety and workflow benefits alongside concerns about interoperability, usability, training, alerts, and communication.1 A mixed-methods primary-care study connected electronic medical record use with coordination and patient engagement while identifying implementation needs.11 A shared-viewer platform project explored common access to information across sectors.12 These records do not prove that another dashboard will help coordinators. They support asking whether technology replaces duplicate work, clarifies status, protects privacy, and supplies a usable fallback during downtime.
A scoping review of artificial intelligence in emergency-department triage also emphasized validation, transparency, bias, integration, and governance questions.6 If automated routing or prioritization affects the coordinator's queue, the organization must define who validates the information, who can act on it, and how staff report a suspected error. Recognition should never be used to transfer ungoverned technology risk to the frontline.
Experience and workforce signals belong in the review
Care-pathway and delay studies show why timestamps alone are insufficient. A life-events calendar approach revealed patient and caregiver blind spots across a complex pathway, while a qualitative kidney-stone study described delays from the patient's perspective.710 A national outpatient survey found comparatively lower satisfaction in waiting-time, accessibility, and administrative-support domains.16 These findings do not create a universal target. They support measuring whether people know the next step, can access help, and understand who to contact when the expected action does not occur.
Workforce evidence also points toward supportive conditions. A study of error management in Greek hospitals highlighted reported gaps alongside workload, staffing, orientation, and training concerns.17 A study of New Zealand ophthalmologists found greater disorder and burnout symptoms in the public setting, with administrative support and autonomy identified as possible improvement areas.18 Neither study evaluates coordinator recognition. Together they reinforce a system principle: appreciation is more credible when leaders address workload, role clarity, support, and learning conditions.
One week, one operating commitment
Run a seven-day recognition-to-improvement cycle
The observance week can function as a compact improvement campaign. Each day has a distinct purpose, a named lead, and a small output. The sequence starts with listening, moves through scope and work design, practices coordination under realistic conditions, recognizes contribution with evidence, and ends with a governed 90-day commitment. The intent is not to compress major organizational change into seven days. It is to use seven days to define one problem carefully enough that the next 90 days can produce a credible test.
Design status: This sequence is a management model synthesized from the evidence. Local teams should adjust the dates, participants, labor processes, and safety review to fit their setting.
| Day | Primary activity | Required participants | Output before the day closes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | Listen across shifts and map one recurring request family | Coordinators, frontline clinicians, unit leader, receiving service | Current-state map with channels, waits, workarounds, and unanswered questions |
| Day 2 | Clarify contribution, scope, ownership, and clinical escalation | Role leaders, clinical governance, human resources or labor partner | Draft role and escalation specification for the selected work |
| Day 3 | Review staffing, coverage, interruptions, technology, and peak demand | Coordinators, scheduling, unit operations, IT, safety partner | Prioritized friction list with constraints leaders can address |
| Day 4 | Practice a routine handoff, a missing-information case, and a downtime case | Senders, receivers, coordinator, educator, observer | Revised script, acceptance signal, backup, and recovery rule |
| Day 5 | Recognize contribution with specific examples and team impact | Executive sponsor, unit teams, coordinators | Public acknowledgment tied to observed contribution and system support |
| Day 6 | Co-design development, onboarding, cross-training, and wellbeing supports | Coordinators, educator, manager, workforce partner | Prioritized development and coverage actions with named owners |
| Day 7 | Approve the charter for one 90-day test and governance cadence | Executive sponsor, clinical and operational owners, data owner | Signed charter, baseline plan, review dates, resources, and stop conditions |
Days 1 and 2: listen before defining
Listening should include more than a celebration lunch or an open-ended survey. Observe work on at least two shifts. Ask coordinators to walk through a recent ordinary request, a delayed request, and a request that required urgent escalation. Record every channel, the information needed, the handoffs, the waiting points, and the people who perform recovery work. Include the sending and receiving roles so the map reflects the interface rather than one person's memory.
On Day 2, convert observations into explicit role language. For the selected request family, state what the coordinator may receive, verify, route, document, confirm, or escalate. State what the role must not assess or decide. Name the clinical and operational owners, backups, and emergency pathways. A telemedicine study that included a medical secretary described how digital care can change professional boundaries and introduce new system friction.14 The setting was an outpatient endometriosis service, but the transferable question is valuable: when the channel changes, has the organization redesigned roles, training, supervision, and fallback communication?
Days 3 and 4: expose strain and practice recovery
Day 3 examines whether the system supplies enough capacity for the work it expects. Review shift coverage, breaks, vacancies, onboarding, peak admission and discharge periods, call and message volume, duplicate entry, environmental distractions, and downtime. Do not turn the review into individual surveillance. Aggregate the findings, protect privacy, and distinguish demand the team can redesign from capacity constraints that require executive action.
Day 4 uses short simulation. Practice a routine request, one with missing information, one in which the intended receiver does not accept, and one during a digital outage. The observer should look for identity verification, role boundaries, urgency, minimum necessary information, receiver acceptance, closure, and recovery. Interprofessional education work shows the value of structured practice for collaboration and role understanding.9 The specific project does not establish a universal curriculum, so each scenario should reflect the organization's real risks and approved protocols.
Days 5 through 7: recognize, develop, and commit
Day 5 is the public recognition moment, but it should use specific and respectful language. Describe how coordinators support reliable communication, organized information, patient movement, visitor access, unit awareness, and recovery from interruptions. Avoid claiming that the role single-handedly creates safety or flow. Thank the team members and services that participate in closed-loop coordination, and name the organization responsibilities that make the coordinator contribution possible.
Day 6 links recognition to development. Ask coordinators what knowledge, cross-training, technology support, mentoring, and career exposure would help them succeed. Review onboarding consistency and continuing learning. Development should not be framed as a remedy for system defects. Training can strengthen skill and confidence, but it cannot replace staffing, usable technology, respectful behavior, clear decision rights, or safe escalation.
Day 7 converts the week's findings into one 90-day charter. Name the sponsor, frontline coordinator partner, clinical owner, operational owner, receiving service, data owner, and patient or caregiver partner when appropriate. Define the request family, baseline, measures, exclusions, privacy controls, resources, review cadence, and stop conditions. A quality-improvement review in pediatric emergency care emphasizes fitting structured improvement methods to local context and resources.5 The content area differs, but the method fits: test a bounded change, review the result, and avoid assuming that another organization's solution can be copied unchanged.
Illustrative data only: The 118 events and category counts are a fictional example showing how a local team could prioritize review. They are not study findings, benchmarks, targets, or predicted effects. Create categories from actual local cases and allow more than one cause when appropriate.
Work design that respects the role
Fix the conditions that recognition week makes visible
The week will likely uncover friction that no individual can solve. Requests may arrive through too many channels. Clinical urgency may be poorly signaled. Coverage may disappear during breaks. Systems may require duplicate entry. Receivers may not acknowledge work. Patients and families may be redirected without knowing who owns the next step. The leadership task is to classify those conditions, decide which can be corrected locally, and elevate the constraints that require organizational action.
Use locally: Review actual cases with coordinators and the people who send and receive work. Do not assume that every listed cause exists on every unit.
Define work at the level of common requests
A generic job-description paragraph is not enough. For each high-volume or high-risk request family, define the required intake information, the coordinator contribution, the accountable receiver, the backup, the acceptance signal, the expected completion or escalation rule, and the way closure is communicated. Include non-routine conditions such as similar names, changed orders, missing consent, language needs, disability accommodations, family conflict, isolation precautions, security concerns, surge capacity, and downtime.
Structured communication can help, but it is only reliable when ownership is real. A message can be perfectly formatted and still fail if no receiver accepts it. A multidisciplinary-conference study found that clinicians valued interdisciplinary communication and collegiality while also describing workload and access challenges; administrative support was among the features associated with participation.19 The specialized cancer-care setting differs from unit coordination, but the operating lesson is relevant: successful collaboration requires prepared inputs, representation, time, access, and support around the conversation.
Manage flow as a shared system
An infusion-center survey illustrates how scheduling, staffing, preparation, treatment time, and patient needs interact in operational flow.2 A command-centre architecture paper proposes integrated operational information for real-time coordination.4 Neither record establishes a coordinator staffing model. Together they warn against evaluating coordinators as if they control every delay. A dashboard should expose whether a staffed bed, transporter, diagnostic slot, pharmacist, interpreter, or receiving service is unavailable, not simply show that the coordinator has an open task.
Protect error reporting and escalation
A coordinator should never be expected to resolve clinical ambiguity. The role needs a clear route for concerning changes, unclear orders, critical information, patient or family safety concerns, privacy uncertainty, and overdue high-risk actions. The ESINEA cohort evaluation examined a structured method for identifying patient-safety incidents and adverse events.13 Its specific tool requires independent appraisal. The transferable governance lesson is that safety review depends on explicit definitions and a reproducible response, not informal recollection.
Psychological safety matters. Staff need a way to report that workload is unsafe, an instruction is unclear, or a workaround has become normal without being treated as the source of the problem. A qualitative ICU study of implementation barriers and facilitators described the influence of knowledge, workflow, resources, teamwork, and organizational support.8 The clinical intervention differs, but the implementation signal applies: a policy is only usable when the work environment enables it.
Recognition should also include fair access to development. Offer learning across shifts and employment arrangements. Build role-specific simulation around real systems. Provide accessible materials and more than one way to participate. Make mentorship and cross-training opportunities transparent. If advancement requires competencies, state them clearly and give staff a reasonable route to develop them. If no career ladder exists, do not imply that symbolic recognition substitutes for compensation, staffing, or advancement review.
Patients and caregivers can help evaluate whether coordination is understandable. Their participation should be voluntary, compensated when appropriate, accessible, and protected from pressure. Ask whether they knew the next step, whether communication needs were met, whether they were redirected repeatedly, and whether they knew whom to contact. Do not ask them to judge internal staffing or determine individual performance. Their experience is one source of system evidence, not a satisfaction score attached to one coordinator.
A scorecard for learning and protection
Measure whether recognition changed the system
A recognition-week dashboard should not count attendance, social posts, gifts, or thank-you messages as the primary outcome. Those activities may matter to community and morale, but they do not show whether work became clearer or safer. The executive scorecard should connect participation with operating changes: intake quality, ownership, loop closure, safety recovery, workforce experience, patient understanding, and equity.
| Domain | Example measure | Local denominator | Stratify or balance with | Target rule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation | Coordinators across defined shifts who can contribute safely to listening or review | Eligible staff in the campaign scope | Shift, employment status, tenure, access method | Set an inclusion goal without compelling disclosure |
| Role clarity | Staff who can identify scope, named receiver, backup, and clinical escalation for the selected work | Respondents after orientation or simulation | Role, shift, tenure, request type | Pair knowledge with observed workflow performance |
| Loop closure | Eligible priority actions accepted, completed, or escalated by the local due rule | Eligible priority actions due in the period | Service, shift, urgency, failure reason | Use risk-specific rules, not one universal clock |
| Safety and recovery | Reviewed high-risk exceptions receiving documented recovery and learning | High-risk exceptions meeting the case definition | Cause group, harm potential, recovery type | Improve reporting quality while reducing repeated causes |
| Workforce | Coordinators report manageable channels, usable tools, coverage, respect, and safe escalation | Respondents at the defined interval | Shift, tenure, employment status | Pair with interruptions, overtime, vacancy, and coverage |
| Experience and equity | Patients or caregivers know the next step and contact route | Respondents at the selected transition | Language, disability, age, digital access, caregiver involvement | Co-design accessible 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.
Measure actions that leaders can change
A practical measure should lead to a decision. If requests arrive without enough information, leaders can redesign intake. If messages circulate because no receiver is accountable, leaders can clarify ownership. If queue time reflects unavailable capacity, leaders can address staffing or scheduling. If staff cannot use the approved system during downtime, leaders can test the fallback. The scorecard should distinguish these causes instead of treating every open item as a personal productivity failure.
Patient satisfaction evidence and care-pathway research support looking beyond speed.167 A person may receive a fast response and still lack accessible information, a clear contact, or confidence about the next step. Combine timestamps with a small number of co-designed experience questions. Review language access, disability access, digital access, age, caregiver involvement, and other locally lawful equity dimensions, while protecting privacy when counts are small.
Use balancing measures to prevent hidden burden
An improvement can make one metric look better by moving work elsewhere. A new intake form may reduce missing information but add duplicate documentation. Faster closure may increase unsafe escalation avoidance. A centralized queue may reduce calls while creating alert overload. Track coordinator interruptions, after-hours work, overtime, duplicate entry, training time, clinician redirection, patient callbacks, and unresolved exceptions. Ask whether the design creates more work for nurses, physicians, ancillary services, patients, or caregivers.
A patient-safety improvement is credible only when the review can detect unintended consequences. Studies in this evidence set address safety screening, error management, implementation barriers, and checklist adherence.131720 They concern different settings and methods, so they do not establish the proposed measures. They support explicit definitions, leadership response, feedback, and evaluation rather than relying on good intentions.
Six questions for the 30-day executive review
- Which contribution became more visible, and what changed because leaders saw it?
- Which request type most often lacked enough information or a named receiver?
- Where did workload, coverage, technology, or capacity make the agreed process unrealistic?
- Did coordinators remain within scope and feel safe escalating uncertainty?
- Did aggregate improvement hide a worse experience for a shift, role, or patient group?
- What will be stopped, simplified, resourced, redesigned, or scaled before the next review?
From observance to sustained governance
Use 90 days to test whether the commitment holds
The campaign should end with one bounded test, not a list of every problem heard during the week. Choose a recurring coordination failure that matters to patients and staff and that the participating leaders have authority to change. Examples include missing information in a defined request, repeated redirection between two services, no acceptance signal for a priority handoff, unclear coverage during a shift change, or duplicate status documentation across systems.
Planning boundary: The timing is illustrative. Clinical governance, privacy, labor agreements, technology change control, workforce capacity, and safety review may require another cadence.
Days 1-15: confirm the charter and protect the role
The charter should name an executive sponsor, health unit coordinator partner, clinical owner, operational owner, receiving-service representative, workforce partner, data owner, and technology or privacy partner when relevant. Define the selected request, population, location, shifts, exclusions, approved channels, clinical escalation, coverage, data definitions, resources, and stop conditions. Record what will not change during the test. A pilot is not acceptable if it makes one queue look better by adding undocumented work or unsafe responsibility to the coordinator.
Obtain required clinical, labor, privacy, accessibility, and information-security approvals before changing work. Do not collect identifiable staff narratives in a public recognition activity. Separate recognition participation from performance evaluation. If leaders review cases, remove unnecessary identifiers, use a just-culture approach, and establish how urgent safety issues will be handled. Psychological safety is not a survey item alone. It requires a predictable response when staff raise a concern.
Days 1-30: establish baseline and specify the future state
Review a manageable sample of recent cases using a written case definition. Count missing information, wrong routing, repeated redirection, absent acceptance, overdue closure, duplicate entry, interruptions, and recovery actions. Add qualitative review so the team can understand why events occurred. A number without the work context can mislead. The illustrative Pareto display in Figure 3 is only a model for organizing local observations, not a benchmark.
Specify the future state at the level of one request family. Define minimum information, authorized channels, sender responsibility, coordinator contribution, receiver responsibility, backup, due rule, closure signal, and escalation. Use existing technology where possible. If a new field, form, or dashboard is proposed, identify which old step it replaces and how the team will handle downtime. Digital evidence in the review consistently supports attention to interoperability, usability, training, and workflow fit rather than technology for its own sake.11112
Days 22-75: pilot in small batches and learn weekly
Begin with a defined shift, unit, or subset of requests. Conduct short checks while the design is new, then a weekly multidisciplinary exception review. Examine every high-risk miss and a sample of ordinary work. Ask whether information was sufficient, the correct owner accepted, the coordinator stayed within scope, the patient or team received closure, and the fallback worked. Update training and the workflow together. Repeating education without correcting a design defect is not improvement.
Use run charts or simple proportions only after definitions are stable. Annotate major staffing, technology, or workflow changes. Small samples will fluctuate, so do not celebrate a single good week or blame a single bad one. Pair operational data with brief staff and patient experience checks. Command-centre and service-flow research can inform visibility, but it does not remove the need for accountable action and capacity.42
Days 61-90: evaluate and make an explicit decision
Compare the pilot with its own baseline using the pre-specified definitions. Review results by shift, request type, service, and lawful access variables. Examine coordinator workload, interruptions, overtime, duplicate documentation, role confidence, clinical-team experience, patient understanding, safety events, and technology failures. Document missing data and limits. A plausible story is not enough to justify scale.
The decision should be scale, adapt and retest, pause, or stop. Scale only when the team can explain which components produced value, what resources are required, and what another unit must adapt. Adapt when the core design remains sound but role boundaries, technology, timing, or coverage need revision. Pause when a dependency is unresolved. Stop when the test adds burden, hides risk, undermines scope, or does not improve the selected problem.
A practical observance commitment
For Health Unit Coordinator Recognition Week 2026, select one recurring coordination failure and make seven things visible within 90 days: required intake information, coordinator contribution, accountable sender, accountable receiver, due rule, closure signal, and recovery action when the loop fails.
The leadership standard
Let the week produce a better operating environment
Health unit coordinators help translate a continuous stream of information, movement, requests, and uncertainty into organized action. Their work is easiest to overlook when the system functions. Recognition Week is an opportunity to make that contribution visible without turning invisible labor into a heroic expectation.
The evidence does not support one universal role description, staffing ratio, recognition program, or target. It supports disciplined questions. Is scope clear? Are channels usable? Does every priority request have an accountable receiver? Can staff see closure? Is clinical uncertainty protected by escalation? Does technology reduce duplicate work? Are coverage, training, development, and wellbeing treated as operating requirements? Can patients and caregivers understand the next step?
A meaningful observance joins appreciation to action. Listen to the role, inspect the system, practice recovery, name contribution specifically, support development, and place one 90-day commitment under visible governance. When the review leads to clearer work and better support, the week becomes more than recognition. It becomes a disciplined workforce and reliability intervention.
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