Introduction: The most common reason for the adverse events in healthcare is communication. Due to the development of health technologies and the increasing specialization of care, more and more healthcare professionals are involved in the treatment of patients, resulting in an increasingly important role and risk for patient handover. Aim: To present the current state of knowledge of patient handover through the results of an international project. Method: Self-developed, anonymous questionnaires with single and multiple choice questions were used to investigate handover knowledge among healthcare workers in 3 Hungarian and 3 Polish hospitals. The frequency of responses was analyzed according to their correctness. The factors that can influence the knowledge were studied using a regression model in the Hungarian sample. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 63% of the 2963 employees who received the questionnaires. In the two countries, there was no significant difference in the proportion of correct responses. Nearly half of the responders (49.4%–45.7%) gave the right answers to the question about the definition of patient handover. The lowest rate of correct answers (14.4%–11.1%) was given to elements of patient handover techniques. The difficulty of the questions also showed a similar pattern. Conclusion: Based on the results, it can be concluded that knowledge of handover needs to be improved in both countries. Although healthcare providers have some knowledge about handover, it cannot be considered accurate and complete. It is important to promote the knowledge and practice of handover together for the safety of patients and healthcare providers. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(44): 1735–1743.

The gap between evidence and clinical practice has been in the focus of researches for decades. Although successful implementation means the new knowledge must work in particular environments, it doesn’t mean that the entire process should exclusively be executed by the individual institutes. This is the point where we assumed that an intermediate step, the “general good practice”, could help to ensure that translation is done in a more professional way.The development of the general good practice methodology was based on our infinitE model, which organized the factors of successful translation into an evidence-editing-embedding-effect on practice framework, using tools from the disciplines of Evidence-Based Medicine, Quality Improvement and Change Management.The methodology organised the editing and embedding part of the development into a process involving three full-day sessions carried out with different health professionals, experts and moderators. After pilot testing, it was finalized and applied to other topics as well.The methodology presented in detail in this paper, centred on flow chart, process analysis, failure mode identification and Kotter’s 8-step model. Beside the pilot topic of the institutional process of resuscitation, the methodology has also proved applicable to more than ten other topics, meaning that at least all the core elements of the proposed bundle of general good practice have been produced in the development process.Compared to the guidelines, general good practices demonstrate the evidence in operation, helping to develop workflows, responsibilities, documentation, trainings, etc. and can also be a starting point for the digitalisation of care processes.The next step is to examine how healthcare institutions can build on these in their own editing and embedding activities, and what the results will be. Further studies could explore the applicability of the development methodology in different healthcare systems or at different levels of maturity in terms of quality.