Introduction

Patient safety remains a top priority in global healthcare systems due to the continued incidence of adverse events in hospital settings. Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) affect approximately 3% to 6% of hospitalized patients, resulting in prolonged length of stay and increased medical expenses.1,2 Communication failures during care transitions are important contributors to preventable patient harm, and structured handoff programs have been associated with reductions in medical errors and preventable adverse events.3 Therefore, risk mitigation efforts are essential to reduce preventable morbidity and mortality. Early identification of clinical risks is important for supporting timely and efficient intervention for deteriorating patients.4

The use of digital health technology has emerged as a promising strategy for reducing the risk of medical errors and enhancing patient safety. Electronic health records (EHRs) and clinical decision support systems (CDSs) can assist healthcare professionals in making more accurate and data-informed clinical decisions.5 The integration of data-driven algorithms enables real-time monitoring of clinical observations at the bedside and may help detect early signs of clinical deterioration.6 These technologies can serve as an additional safety support system that complements the clinical competence and judgment of healthcare professionals in daily care. The implementation of health information technology may also support standardization of service processes across hospital units, from emergency departments to intensive care settings.7

One crucial area of innovation is the early detection of patient deterioration through early warning systems (EWS) powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. Early warning systems such as eCART and CONCERN have been developed to predict the risk of death, cardiac arrest, or clinical deterioration before severe events occur.6,8 These algorithms can process vital signs and clinical documentation patterns to provide dynamic risk scores to the care team. When integrated with standardized escalation protocols, automated EWS may support timely clinical responses, including closer monitoring, rapid assessment, or transfer to intensive care before the patient’s condition worsens.9

Medication safety has also been supported by the implementation of barcode technology and electronic verification systems throughout the medication-use process. Medication administration errors and prescription transcription errors may be reduced through the use of electronic medication administration records and barcode systems at the patient’s bedside.10,11 Barcode scanning technology in pharmacy units can also support medication dispensing verification and help ensure that prepared medications are checked before administration.12,13 In addition, clinical decision support systems may help identify potential drug interactions or contraindications. However, challenges such as alert fatigue remain important to address because excessive or poorly targeted alerts may reduce clinical responsiveness to important warnings.14,15

Standardizing communication protocols through patient handoffs and digital checklists is another important strategy for preventing the loss of critical medical information. The use of standardized protocol scripts and mnemonics such as I-PASS may improve situational awareness among multidisciplinary healthcare team members.3 In intensive care units, intelligent and dynamic digital checklists tailored to patient profiles may support adherence to best clinical practices compared with manual paper-based methods.16,17 Integrating these checklists into digital workflows can help reduce cognitive load and ensure that important safety parameters are not missed during clinical care.18 Such standardized communication is essential for maintaining continuity of care during shift changes, patient transfers, and multidisciplinary decision-making.

Although various digital technologies and standardized protocols have been implemented to improve patient safety, the existing evidence remains diverse in terms of intervention type, clinical setting, implementation process, and reported outcomes. Digital technologies refer to tools such as electronic health records, clinical decision support systems, machine learning-based early warning systems, barcode medication administration, electronic monitoring systems, and digital checklists. Standardized protocols refer to structured clinical processes such as escalation pathways, medication verification procedures, handoff protocols, sepsis care bundles, hand hygiene protocols, and fall-prevention procedures. Implementation mechanisms include staff training, workflow integration, alert management, interprofessional communication, audit and feedback, and organizational support.19 Distinguishing these components is important because digital tools may support patient safety only when they are aligned with clinical protocols and embedded into multidisciplinary workflows.20,21

Previous reviews have often focused on specific technologies or individual safety domains, such as early warning and rapid response systems,22 barcode medication administration technology,11 or clinical decision support systems for medication-related outcomes.23 However, less attention has been given to how digital health technologies are integrated with standardized protocols across multidisciplinary hospital workflows. This gap is important because the contribution of digital tools may vary depending on clinical protocols, staff roles, escalation pathways, workflow integration, and organizational context. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the current literature regarding the integration of digital health technologies and standardized protocols for enhancing patient safety in hospital settings.

MethodsStudy Design

This study used a scoping review design based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and further refined by Levac et al24,25 A scoping review was considered appropriate because the evidence on digital health technologies, standardized protocols, and patient safety is broad, methodologically diverse, and implemented across different hospital-based settings and multidisciplinary workflows. The purpose of this review was to map the range, nature, and characteristics of available evidence rather than to estimate pooled intervention effects.

The review was guided by the following research question: “How have digital health technologies and standardized protocols been integrated in hospital-based settings to support patient safety, and what patient safety outcomes have been reported?” The review process followed the main stages of scoping review methodology: identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting studies, charting the data, and collating, summarizing, and reporting the findings. Reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Supplementary File 1).

Eligibility Criteria

The eligibility criteria were developed using the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework. The population included patients receiving care in hospital-based settings and healthcare professionals involved in hospital-based care, including nurses, physicians, pharmacists, residents, and other multidisciplinary team members. Hospital-based settings included inpatient wards, emergency departments, intensive care units, surgical units, medical wards, pediatric units, pharmacy units, and hospital-based outpatient or discharge services when these services were integrated with hospital workflows and patient safety protocols.

The concept focused on the integration of digital health technologies with standardized protocols to support patient safety. Digital technologies included artificial intelligence or machine learning-based early warning systems, barcode medication administration systems, electronic medication administration records, electronic health records, clinical decision support systems, electronic medication reconciliation tools, digital checklists, electronic monitoring systems, and digital safety toolkits. Standardized protocols included escalation pathways, medication verification procedures, handoff protocols, sepsis protocols or care bundles, hand hygiene protocols, fall-prevention procedures, and discharge or medication reconciliation procedures. The context was hospital-based care, including acute inpatient care and hospital-linked outpatient or transitional care services where the intervention was implemented as part of a hospital safety system.

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) original research articles; (2) published in English; (3) published between 2006 and June 2025; (4) conducted in hospital-based care settings, including inpatient units, emergency departments, intensive care units, hospital pharmacy units, and hospital-based outpatient or discharge services when integrated with hospital workflows and patient safety protocols; (5) examined digital health technologies integrated with standardized clinical or safety protocols; and (6) reported at least one patient safety-related outcome, such as mortality, length of stay, medication errors, adverse drug events, handoff quality, communication accuracy, protocol adherence, hand hygiene compliance, infection-related outcomes, fall-related outcomes, or discharge medication safety outcomes. Eligible study designs included randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials, stepped-wedge trials, quasi-experimental studies, before-and-after studies, observational studies, interrupted time-series studies, mixed-methods studies, and natural experiments.

Studies were excluded if they were review articles, editorials, commentaries, opinion papers, conference abstracts without complete data, protocols without results, or studies without primary data. Studies were also excluded if they were conducted exclusively in community, home-care, primary care, or non-hospital outpatient settings; focused only on a single professional practice without digital technology integration; lacked a clear patient safety focus; or examined pharmacological efficacy without a service delivery, protocol, or digital system component.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

A systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. These databases were selected because they cover medical, nursing, health services, and technology-related literature relevant to digital health and patient safety. The search included English-language studies published from 2006 to June 2025, and the final search was conducted in June 2025. The eligible studies included in this review were published between 2006 and 2025.

The search strategy combined keywords and controlled vocabulary related to digital health technologies, standardized protocols, patient safety, and hospital-based care. Search terms included combinations of: “digital health”, “health information technology”, “electronic health record”, “clinical decision support”, “early warning system”, “machine learning”, “artificial intelligence”, “barcode medication administration”, “electronic medication administration record”, “medication reconciliation”, “digital checklist”, “electronic monitoring”, “standardized protocol”, “handoff”, “I-PASS”, “sepsis bundle”, “fall prevention”, “hand hygiene”, “patient safety”, “medical error”, “adverse event”, “hospital”, “intensive care unit”, and “emergency department”. Boolean operators, truncation, and database-specific subject headings were used where appropriate. The search strategy was adapted for each database according to its indexing system and search interface. Reference lists of relevant articles were also screened manually to identify additional eligible studies. All retrieved records were exported to Mendeley for reference management and duplicate removal. The full database-specific search strategies are provided in Supplementary File 2.

Study Selection

After duplicate records were removed, titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria. Potentially relevant articles were then retrieved for full-text assessment. Screening was conducted independently by two reviewers. Disagreements during title and abstract screening or full-text assessment were resolved through discussion. If consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer was consulted.

Data Charting

Data were extracted using a standardized data-charting form developed by the review team. Extracted information included article title, author and year, country, hospital-based setting, study design, sample characteristics, type of digital technology, standardized protocol or workflow component, implementation approach, duration of intervention or evaluation, patient safety outcomes, and key study-specific findings.

Data charting was conducted independently by two reviewers and then compared for accuracy and completeness. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. The data-charting form was refined during the extraction process to ensure that it captured the range of technologies, protocols, workflows, and outcomes reported across the included studies. Because the objective of this scoping review was to map the evidence, data were extracted descriptively and were not used to calculate pooled effect estimates.

Data Synthesis

Data were synthesized using descriptive content analysis and thematic synthesis. First, the characteristics of the included studies were summarized descriptively according to publication year, country, hospital-based setting, study design, digital technology, standardized protocol, and reported patient safety outcomes. Second, the studies were grouped according to the type of digital technology and its integration with standardized protocols or clinical workflows. Third, thematic synthesis was used to identify recurring patterns across the included studies.

Four thematic areas were identified: (1) early detection of patient deterioration through algorithm-based early warning systems; (2) medication safety through barcode technology, electronic medication reconciliation, and clinical decision support systems; (3) standardization of clinical communication through handoff protocols and digital checklists; and (4) improvement of safety-protocol compliance through electronic monitoring and digital safety toolkits. Reported outcomes were summarized as study-specific findings. No meta-analysis was conducted because the included studies were heterogeneous in terms of study design, intervention type, clinical setting, population, implementation process, and outcome measurement.

Critical Appraisal

Formal critical appraisal of individual studies was not conducted. This decision was consistent with the purpose of a scoping review, which is to map the extent, range, and nature of available evidence rather than to determine intervention effectiveness or certainty of evidence. Therefore, the findings are presented as evidence mapping and study-specific reported outcomes, not as pooled or definitive evidence of effectiveness.

Ethical Considerations

Ethics approval and informed consent were not required because this study was a scoping review of previously published literature and did not involve direct contact with human participants, primary patient data collection, or animal subjects.

ResultsSearch and Selection Process

A total of 1845 records were identified through searches of five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. After 520 duplicate records were removed, 1325 records remained for title and abstract screening. Of these, 1,260 records were excluded because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Sixty-five full-text reports were assessed for eligibility. Forty-five reports were excluded at the full-text stage because they were not conducted in hospital-based care settings, did not integrate digital technology with standardized protocols, did not report patient safety outcomes, had insufficient methodological information, or were conference abstracts without complete data. Finally, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this scoping review (Table 1). The selection process is presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1).26

Figure 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram.26

Table 1 Summary of Included Studies on Digital Health Technologies, Standardized Protocols, and Patient Safety

Study Characteristics

The 20 included studies were published between 2006 and 2025. Most studies were conducted in the United States, while other studies were conducted in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Canada, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Switzerland. The clinical settings included intensive care units, emergency departments, medical-surgical wards, pediatric units, pharmacy units, operating room-to-intensive care transitions, hospital-based outpatient or discharge services, and other hospital-based patient safety systems.

The included studies used diverse methodological designs, including randomized controlled trials, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, quasi-experimental before-and-after studies, prospective observational studies, retrospective studies, interrupted time-series studies, mixed-methods studies, and natural experiments. The digital technologies identified included machine learning-based early warning systems, electronic sepsis alerts, barcode medication administration systems, electronic medication reconciliation tools, clinical decision support systems, digital checklists, electronic handoff tools, electronic monitoring systems, wearable hand hygiene devices, and digital fall-prevention toolkits. These technologies were integrated with standardized protocols or workflows such as escalation pathways, sepsis care processes, medication verification procedures, handoff protocols, checklist-based ward rounds, hand hygiene protocols, and fall-prevention procedures. A summary of the included studies is presented in Table 1.

Thematic Synthesis

Four thematic areas were identified from the included studies: (1) early detection of patient deterioration through algorithm-based early warning systems; (2) medication safety through barcode technology, electronic medication reconciliation, and clinical decision support systems; (3) standardization of clinical communication through handoff protocols and digital checklists; and (4) improvement of safety-protocol compliance through electronic monitoring and digital safety toolkits. The findings are presented as study-specific reported outcomes rather than pooled estimates of effectiveness.

Theme 1: Early Detection of Patient Deterioration Through Algorithm-Based Early Warning Systems

Several included studies examined algorithm-based early warning systems to support earlier recognition of patient deterioration or sepsis risk. These systems used machine learning algorithms, electronic health record data, vital signs, or clinical documentation patterns to identify patients at increased risk and trigger clinical responses. A machine learning-based severe sepsis prediction algorithm in intensive care units was associated with shorter length of stay and lower in-hospital mortality compared with usual detection systems.32 The implementation of the eCART machine learning risk score and escalation workflow in medical-surgical wards was associated with lower hospital mortality and increased early ICU transfer processes among high-risk patients.6 The CONCERN early warning system, which used nursing documentation patterns to identify the risk of deterioration, was associated with lower mortality and shorter length of stay.8 An automated clinical alert system linked to early warning score protocols was associated with improved clinical response to elevated EWS scores and shorter hospital length of stay.9

Electronic sepsis alerts were also reported in emergency department and ward settings. A digital sepsis alert implemented across a multi-site hospital network was associated with lower mortality and more timely antibiotic administration.39 A provider- and pharmacist-facing sepsis early warning system in the emergency department was associated with faster antibiotic administration and increased days alive outside the hospital.35 Electronic sepsis screening using qSOFA-based alerts in hospital wards was associated with lower 90-day in-hospital mortality and improved selected sepsis care processes.36 Overall, these studies suggest that early warning systems may support earlier clinical recognition and escalation when embedded in standardized response protocols.

Theme 2: Medication Safety Through Barcode Technology, Electronic Medication Reconciliation, and Clinical Decision Support Systems

Several studies focused on digital technologies to support medication safety across prescribing, dispensing, administration, and discharge processes. Bar-code electronic medication administration technology was associated with reductions in non-timing medication administration errors, transcription errors, and potential adverse drug events.10 Barcode technology in the pharmacy dispensing process was associated with lower medication dispensing errors and potential dispensing-related adverse drug events.13 Automated unit dose dispensing with barcode-assisted medication administration was associated with a reduction in medication administration errors, particularly potentially harmful errors.37 Although Clinical Decision Support (CDS) systems are very useful, challenges arise in the form of “alert fatigue”.9

Clinical decision support systems were used to identify medication-related risks such as drug-drug interactions, contraindications, and inappropriate prescriptions. A real-time drug utilization review system was associated with changes in prescribing patterns and selected adverse drug event-related outcomes among patients using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.28 A comparison of medication-related clinical decision support systems in intensive care units showed differences in alert exposure and override patterns between commercial and legacy systems.30 Inappropriate overrides of clinical decision support alerts were associated with a higher risk of adverse drug events.31 An electronic discharge medication reconciliation tool was associated with a reduction in intravenous antibiotic errors at discharge.38 These findings indicate that digital medication safety systems may support safer medication processes, but their contribution depends on alert quality, scanning compliance, workflow integration, and staff response to system recommendations.

Theme 3: Standardization of Clinical Communication Through Handoff Protocols and Digital Checklists

Digital tools were also used to support standardized communication and checklist-based care. A standardized handoff protocol for postoperative admissions to the surgical intensive care unit was associated with improved caregiver engagement and communication of critical perioperative information.27 The use of I-PASS and an electronic handoff system in a pediatric residency program was associated with improved situational awareness and reduced omissions of critical handoff information.29

Digital checklists were identified as another strategy for supporting adherence to standardized clinical processes. An intelligent digital checklist used during intensive care ward rounds was associated with higher checklist compliance compared with paper-based checklists.17 These studies suggest that electronic handoff tools and digital checklists may support communication reliability and adherence to structured clinical workflows, particularly when integrated into multidisciplinary routines.

Theme 4: Safety-Protocol Compliance Through Electronic Monitoring and Digital Safety Toolkits

Several studies examined digital tools designed to support adherence to safety protocols, particularly hand hygiene and fall prevention. Group electronic monitoring of hand hygiene in inpatient units was associated with improved hand hygiene adherence over time and a downward trend in selected infection-related outcomes.33 A wearable hand hygiene feedback device improved hand rubbing duration and hand rub volume, although overall compliance did not change significantly.40

Digital toolkits were also applied to fall prevention. A patient-centered fall-prevention toolkit using digital bedside displays and patient-specific fall-risk information was associated with reductions in falls and falls with injury.34 These findings suggest that electronic monitoring systems and digital safety toolkits may support protocol adherence and patient safety behaviors, but outcomes may vary according to user engagement, feedback mechanisms, and implementation context.

Discussion

This scoping review mapped evidence on the integration of digital health technologies and standardized protocols for enhancing patient safety in hospital-based settings. The included studies covered four main areas: algorithm-based early warning systems for patient deterioration and sepsis detection; medication safety technologies, including barcode systems, electronic medication reconciliation, and clinical decision support; standardized communication tools, including handoff protocols and digital checklists; and electronic monitoring or digital toolkits to support safety-protocol compliance. Across these areas, the included studies reported potential improvements in selected patient safety outcomes, including mortality, length of stay, medication errors, adverse drug events, communication accuracy, hand hygiene adherence, and fall-related outcomes. However, because this review did not include formal critical appraisal or quantitative synthesis, these findings should be interpreted as a map of available evidence rather than definitive evidence of effectiveness.

Digital health technologies may serve not only as memory aids for healthcare professionals but also as additional decision-support systems that help identify risks, structure clinical information, and prompt timely responses. When combined with standardized workflows, these tools may reduce reliance on memory-based processes at critical points of care and support more consistent clinical decision-making. This interaction between technology and protocol is important because digital alerts, checklists, barcode systems, and monitoring tools are unlikely to support patient safety if they are not embedded into clinical workflows and multidisciplinary team routines. Therefore, their contribution appears to depend on how well they are aligned with clinical protocols, staff roles, escalation pathways, and organizational context.7,19

The findings suggest that algorithm-based early warning systems may support earlier recognition of patient deterioration when integrated with standardized escalation pathways. Several included studies reported that machine learning-based or electronic warning systems were associated with improved outcomes, including lower mortality, shorter length of stay, faster antibiotic administration, or improved sepsis care processes.6,8,32,35,36,39 These systems may contribute to patient safety by transforming routinely collected data, such as vital signs, laboratory results, electronic health record data, or nursing documentation patterns, into actionable risk signals. Nevertheless, the potential value of early warning systems depends on more than algorithmic performance. Their contribution to patient safety requires clear response protocols, timely clinical escalation, staff acceptance, and integration into existing ward or emergency department workflows. The potential value of machine learning-based early warning systems lies in their ability to process multiple clinical variables in real time and generate dynamic risk assessments. For example, systems using nursing documentation patterns have been reported to identify deterioration risk earlier than traditional warning approaches, which may provide additional time for clinical assessment, escalation, or transfer to higher levels of care.8,41

Sepsis-related alerts illustrate the importance of linking digital detection with standardized clinical response. Digital sepsis alerts were not implemented as isolated technologies; they were commonly connected to antibiotic administration workflows, pharmacist notification, qSOFA-based screening, or standardized care plans.35,36,39 This suggests that digital systems may be most useful when they are embedded within protocolized care pathways that define who should respond, what action should be taken, and how quickly escalation should occur. However, the heterogeneity of alert systems, settings, outcome measures, and implementation models limits the ability to determine which features are most strongly associated with improved patient safety outcomes.

Medication safety was another major area in which digital technologies were integrated with standardized protocols. Barcode medication administration, pharmacy barcode scanning, automated unit dose dispensing, electronic medication reconciliation, and medication-related clinical decision support systems were used to support safer prescribing, dispensing, administration, and discharge processes. Included studies reported reductions in selected medication administration errors, dispensing errors, potential adverse drug events, or discharge antibiotic errors after implementation of digital medication safety systems.10,13,37,38 These findings suggest that digital verification systems may strengthen medication safety by supporting standardized checks at critical points in the medication-use process. However, staff compliance with scanning procedures remains a key determinant of implementation success. If medications are not scanned according to protocol, the intended safety function of barcode technology may be weakened, and potentially harmful errors may still occur.

Clinical decision support systems may also support medication safety, but the findings highlight the need to manage alert fatigue and inappropriate alert overrides. In the included studies, medication-related alerts were used to identify allergy risks, drug interactions, renal dosing issues, geriatric prescribing risks, and contraindications.30,31 However, high alert exposure and frequent overrides may reduce clinicians’ responsiveness to important warnings. Inappropriate overrides were associated with higher adverse drug event risk, suggesting that alert design and clinical relevance are central implementation issues.31 Therefore, the integration of clinical decision support into patient safety protocols should prioritize patient-specific alerts, reduction of unnecessary alerts, user-centered design, and continuous monitoring of override patterns.

The review also found that standardized communication tools and digital checklists may support safer multidisciplinary care. Handoff protocols, I-PASS mnemonics, electronic physician handoff tools, and intelligent digital checklists were used to reduce communication variability and support adherence to clinical routines.17,27,29 These tools may be particularly important during shift changes, patient transfers, operating room-to-ICU handoffs, and ward rounds, where incomplete information transfer can contribute to patient safety risks. The findings suggest that digital tools can reinforce standardized communication by making critical information more visible, structured, and accessible to the care team. However, successful implementation requires more than introducing a template or checklist; it also requires staff training, shared expectations, leadership support, and integration with existing documentation systems.37

Electronic monitoring systems and digital safety toolkits were used to support compliance with safety protocols such as hand hygiene and fall prevention. Included studies reported that electronic hand hygiene monitoring, wearable feedback devices, and digital fall-prevention toolkits were associated with improvements in selected process or outcome measures, although results varied across studies.33,34,40 These tools may function as both feedback mechanisms and visual reminders for safety behaviors. In hand hygiene and fall prevention, electronic monitoring and digital safety displays can make compliance more visible and provide patient-specific safety information at the point of care.42 These findings suggest that feedback mechanisms, visual reminders, and patient-specific safety information may support safety behaviors in hospital settings. However, the variable findings also indicate that technology alone may not be sufficient to change behavior. Staff engagement, feedback frequency, local safety culture, patient and family involvement, and feasibility within routine care are likely to influence implementation outcomes.

The interaction between human factors and technology is a crucial element in determining the success of digital implementation in hospitals. Medical staff generally appreciate intuitive and fast systems, but technical challenges such as complicated login processes can hinder efficiency. One included study reported that an intelligent digital checklist was associated with higher checklist compliance, although interface design still required refinement based on user feedback.17 Functional barriers in digital systems often lead to the emergence of “workarounds” or shortcuts that can compromise patient safety. Therefore, ongoing training and staff involvement in the system design phase are crucial to ensure the technology truly supports clinical workflows.19

Across all four themes, the findings emphasize that digital health technologies should not be viewed as stand-alone solutions for patient safety. Their contribution appears to depend on their integration with standardized protocols and multidisciplinary workflows. For example, early warning systems require escalation protocols; barcode systems require medication verification procedures; handoff tools require standardized communication expectations; and electronic monitoring systems require feedback and accountability mechanisms. This supports the view that patient safety improvement is shaped by the interaction between technology, human behavior, protocol adherence, and organizational context. Therefore, implementation strategies should consider usability, workflow fit, staff training, leadership support, alert management, and continuous evaluation.

This review highlights several gaps in the current evidence base. First, the included studies varied substantially in design, setting, intervention type, outcome measurement, and follow-up duration, making direct comparison difficult. Second, many studies reported process outcomes, such as compliance, alert response, or communication accuracy, while fewer assessed longer-term patient-centered outcomes. Third, the evidence was concentrated in high-income countries, particularly the United States, which may limit transferability to hospitals with different digital infrastructure, staffing patterns, and resource availability. Future research should use stronger implementation and evaluation designs, report contextual factors more clearly, and examine how digital technologies can be adapted to different hospital systems.

This review also has limitations. Because formal critical appraisal was not conducted, this review cannot determine the certainty or quality of evidence across studies. In addition, quantitative synthesis was not performed because the included studies were heterogeneous in terms of design, intervention type, setting, population, implementation process, and outcome measurement. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as evidence mapping rather than definitive evidence of effectiveness.

Conclusions

This scoping review mapped evidence on the integration of digital health technologies and standardized protocols for supporting patient safety in hospital-based settings. The included studies addressed four main areas: algorithm-based early warning systems for patient deterioration and sepsis detection; medication safety technologies, including barcode systems, electronic medication reconciliation, and clinical decision support; standardized communication tools, including handoff protocols and digital checklists; and electronic monitoring or digital toolkits to support safety-protocol compliance.

The included studies suggest that digital health technologies may support patient safety when they are aligned with standardized protocols and embedded into multidisciplinary clinical workflows. Reported outcomes included improvements in selected areas such as mortality, length of stay, medication errors, adverse drug events, communication accuracy, hand hygiene adherence, and fall-related outcomes. However, because this review did not include formal critical appraisal or quantitative synthesis, these findings should be interpreted as a map of available evidence rather than definitive evidence of intervention effectiveness.

Future research should further examine how digital patient safety interventions are implemented across different hospital contexts, especially in relation to user-centered design, alert fatigue, staff training, workflow integration, interprofessional communication, and organizational readiness. Greater attention is also needed to the sustainability, scalability, and transferability of these interventions across hospitals with different resources, digital infrastructures, and patient safety cultures.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to express their deepest gratitude to Universitas Padjadjaran that supported this research work.

Funding

This research has no external funding.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. Magill SS, O’Leary E, Janelle SJ, et al. Changes in prevalence of health care-associated infections in U.S. Hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(18):1732–15. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801550

2. Suetens C, Latour K, Kärki T, et al. Prevalence of healthcare-associated infections, estimated incidence and composite antimicrobial resistance index in acute care hospitals and long-term care facilities: results from two European point prevalence surveys, 2016 to 2017. Euro Surveill Bull. 2018;23(46). doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.46.1800516

3. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. New Engl J Med. 2014:371. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1405556

4. Gerry S, Bonnici T, Birks J, Kirtley S, Virdee PS, Watkinson PJ. Early warning scores for detecting deterioration in adult hospital patients: systematic review and critical appraisal of methodology. BMJ. 2020;369. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1501

5. Sutton RT, Pincock D, Baumgart DC, Sadowski DC, Fedorak RN, Kroeker KI. An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;6. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0221-y

6. Winslow CJ, Edelson DP, Churpek MM, et al. The impact of a machine learning early warning score on hospital mortality: a multicenter clinical intervention trial. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(6):920–928. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005492

7. Sittig DF, Singh H. A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(Suppl 3):i68–74. doi:10.1136/qshc.2010.042085

8. Rossetti SC, Dykes PC, Knaplund C, et al. Multisite pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial of the CONCERN early warning system. medRxiv. 2024. doi:10.1101/2024.06.04.24308436

9. Jones S, Mullally M, Ingleby S, Buist M, Bailey M, Eddleston JM. Bedside electronic capture of clinical observations and automated clinical alerts to improve compliance with an early warning score protocol. Crit Care Resusc. 2011;13(2):83–88.

10. Poon EG, Keohane CA, Yoon CS, et al. Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(18):1698–1707. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0907115

11. Shah K, Lo C, Babich M, Tsao NW, Bansback NJ. Bar code medication administration technology: a systematic review of impact on patient safety when used with computerized prescriber order entry and automated dispensing devices. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2016;69(5):394–402. doi:10.4212/cjhp.v69i5.1594

12. Al-Worafi Y. Patient Safety-Related Issues: Other Medication Safety Issues BT - Patient Safety in Developing Countries: Education, Research, Case Studies. CRC Press; 2023. doi:10.1201/9781003230465

13. Poon EG, Cina JL, Churchill W, et al. Medication dispensing errors and potential adverse drug events before and after implementing bar code technology in the pharmacy. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(6):426–434. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-6-200609190-00006

14. Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2017;17. doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0430-8

15. Carspecken CW, Sharek PJ, Longhurst C, Pageler NM. A clinical case of electronic health record drug alert fatigue: consequences for patient outcome. Pediatrics. 2013;131(6):e1970–3. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3252

16. Erikson EJ, Edelman DA, Brewster FM, et al. The use of checklists in the intensive care unit: a scoping review. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):468. doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04758-2

17. De Bie AJR, Mestrom E, Compagner W, et al. Intelligent checklists improve checklist compliance in the intensive care unit: a prospective before-and-after mixed-method study. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126(2):404–414. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2020.09.044

18. Conroy KM, Elliott D, Burrell AR. Testing the implementation of an electronic process-of-care checklist for use during morning medical rounds in a tertiary intensive care unit: a prospective before-after study. Ann Intens Care. 2015;5(1):60. doi:10.1186/s13613-015-0060-1

19. Carayon P, Hoonakker P. Human factors and usability for health information technology: old and new challenges. Yearb Med Inform. 2019;28(1):71–77. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1677907

20. Grischott T, Rachamin Y, Senn O, Hug P, Rosemann T, Neuner-Jehle S. Medication review and enhanced information transfer at discharge of older patients with polypharmacy: a cluster-randomized controlled trial in Swiss Hospitals. J Gen Intern Med. 2023;38(3):610–618. doi:10.1007/s11606-022-07728-6

21. Prakaschandra DR, Scheibe A, Marks M, Naidoo DP. Assessing cardiac safety among clients receiving methadone as part of opioid agonist maintenance therapy (OAMT) in Durban, South Africa. J Addict Dis. 2023;41(1):82–90. doi:10.1080/10550887.2022.2063640

22. McGaughey J, Fergusson DA, Van Bogaert P, Rose L. Early warning systems and rapid response systems for the prevention of patient deterioration on acute adult hospital wards. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;11. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005529.pub3

23. Shahmoradi L, Safdari R, Ahmadi H, Zahmatkeshan M. Clinical decision support systems-based interventions to improve medication outcomes: a systematic literature review on features and effects. Mjiri. 2021;35(1):197–212. doi:10.47176/mjiri.35.27

24. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: toward a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616

25. Levac D, Coquhoun H, O’Brien K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

26. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372.

27. Mukhopadhyay D, Wiggins-Dohlvik KC, MrDutt MM, et al. Implementation of a standardized handoff protocol for post-operative admissions to the surgical intensive care unit. Am J Surg. 2018;215(1):28–36. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.005

28. Kim SJ, Han KT, Kang HG, Park EC. Toward safer prescribing: evaluation of a prospective drug utilization review system on inappropriate prescriptions, prescribing patterns, and adverse drug events and related health expenditure in South Korea. Public Health. 2018;163:128–136. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2018.06.009

29. Walia J, Qayumi Z, Khawar N, et al. Physician transition of care: benefits of I-PASS and an electronic handoff system in a community pediatric residency program. Acad Pediatr. 2016;16(6):519–523. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2016.04.010

30. Wong A, Wright A, Seger DL, Amato MG, Fiskio JM, Bates DW. Comparison of overridden medication-related clinical decision support in the intensive care unit between a commercial system and a legacy system. Appl Clin Inform. 2017;8(3):866–879. doi:10.4338/ACI-2017-04-RA-0059

31. Wong A, Amato MG, Seger DL, et al. Prospective evaluation of medication-related clinical decision support overrides in the intensive care unit. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(9):718–724. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007531

32. Shimabukuro DW, Barton CW, Feldman MD. Effect of a machine learning-based severe sepsis prediction algorithm on patient survival and hospital length of stay: a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2017;4. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2017-000234

33. Leis JA, Powis JE, McGeer A, et al. Introduction of group electronic monitoring of hand hygiene on inpatient units: a multicenter cluster randomized quality improvement study. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(10):e680–e685. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa412

34. Dykes PC, Burns Z, Adelman J, et al. Evaluation of a patient-centered fall-prevention tool kit to reduce falls and injuries: a nonrandomized controlled trial. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(11):e2025889. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25889

35. Tarabichi Y, Cheng A, Bar-Shain D, et al. Improving timeliness of antibiotic administration using a provider and pharmacist facing sepsis early warning system in the emergency department setting: a randomized controlled quality improvement initiative. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(3):418–427. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005267

36. Arabi YM, Alsaawi A, Alzahrani M, et al. Electronic sepsis screening among patients admitted to hospital wards: a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. Jama. 2025;333(9):763–773. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.25982

37. Jessurun JG, Hunfeld NGM, van Rosmalen J, van Dijk M, van den Bemt PMLA. Effect of automated unit dose dispensing with barcode scanning on medication administration errors: an uncontrolled before-and-after study. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2021;33(4):mzab142. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzab142

38. Allison GM, Weigel B, Holcroft C. Does electronic medication reconciliation at hospital discharge decrease prescription medication errors? Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2015;28(6):564–573. doi:10.1108/IJHCQA-12-2014-0113

39. Honeyford K, Cooke GS, Kinderlerer A, et al. Evaluating a digital sepsis alert in a London multisite hospital network: a natural experiment using electronic health record data. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2020;27(2):274–283. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz186

40. Pires D, Gayet-Ageron A, Guitart C, et al. Effect of wearing a novel electronic wearable device on hand hygiene compliance among health care workers: a stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(2):e2035331. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35331

41. Pecoraro G, Foria F, Villa F, et al. Landslide early warning systems as climate change adaptation measures for rail infrastructure. In: Ferrari A, Rosone M, Ziccarelli M, Gottardi G, editors. Geotechnical Engineering in the Digital and Technological Innovation Era. Springer Nature Switzerland; 2023:724–731.

42. Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B, et al. Reporting guideline for the early stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. BMJ. 2022;377:e070904. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-070904