A scoping review of new implementations of interprofessional bedside rounding models to improve teamwork, care, and outcomes in hospitals

Poor communication within healthcare teams occurs commonly, contributing to inefficiency, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) are a promising model that brings two or more health professions together with patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the breadth and quality of IBR literature to identify and describe gaps and opportunities for future research. We followed an adapted Arksey and O'Malley Framework and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for key IBR words and concepts through June 2020. Seventy-nine articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data abstraction. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Publications in this field have increased since 2014, and the majority of studies reported positive impacts of IBR implementation across an array of team, patient, and care quality/delivery outcomes. Despite the preponderance of positive findings, great heterogeneity, and a reliance on quantitative non-randomized study designs remain in the extant research. A growing number of interventions to improve safety, quality, and care experiences in hospital settings focus on redesigning daily inpatient rounds. Limited information on IBR characteristics and implementation strategies coupled with widespread variation in terminology, study quality, and design create challenges in assessing the effectiveness of models of rounds and optimal implementation strategies. This scoping review highlights the need for additional studies of rounding models, implementation strategies, and outcomes that facilitate comparative research.

How and why might interprofessional patient- and family-centered rounds improve outcomes among healthcare teams and hospitalized patients? A conceptual framework informed by scoping and narrative literature review methods

Poor communication within healthcare contributes to inefficiencies, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. A promising model to improve outcomes resulting from poor communication in the inpatient hospital setting is Interprofessional Patient- and Family-Centered rounds (IPFCR). IPFCR brings two or more health professions together with hospitalized patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. A growing body of literature focuses on implementation and outcomes of IPFCR to improve healthcare quality and team and patient outcomes. Most studies report positive changes following IPFCR implementation. However, conceptual frameworks and theoretical models are lacking in the IPFCR literature and represent a major gap that needs to be addressed to move this field forward. The purpose of this two-part review is to propose a conceptual framework of how IPFCR works. The goal is to articulate a framework that can be tested in subsequent research studies. Published IPFCR literature and relevant theories and frameworks were examined and synthesized to explore how IPFCR works, to situate IPFCR in relation to existing models and frameworks, and to postulate core components and underlying causal mechanisms. A preliminary, context-specific, conceptual framework is proposed illustrating interrelationships between four core components of IPFCR (interprofessional approach, intentional patient and family engagement, rounding structure, shared development of a daily care plan), improvements in communication, and better outcomes.

Interprofessional rounding design features and associations with collaboration and team effectiveness

Multiple models of interprofessional rounding (IPR) exist. However, researchers find mixed effects for the impact of IPR, pointing to the possibility that variations in design may influence the effectiveness of the practice. We explored whether IPR design variations (location, use of script, and role of the leader) are associated with team collaboration (partnership and cooperation) and team effectiveness as perceived by practitioners and patients (i.e., patient inclusion). A cross-sectional, survey-based method design was used targeting practitioners on 15 different hospital units at two academic health centers. Routinely collected Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Practitioners and Systems scores were used to capture patients' perceptions. Statistical methods included multilevel modeling with moderation analysis. There were several significant relationships among design, team collaboration, and team effectiveness. For the design, role of the leader and use of a script had a significant positive association with cooperation. Practitioners' perceptions of team effectiveness were associated with use of script, and cooperation moderated the relationships between practitioners' perceptions of team effectiveness and location, as well as the role of the leader. There was a significant inverse relationship between cooperation and patient inclusion. Results can inform organizations that are exploring, implementing, or improving IPR as well as considering alternative ways to evaluate their practices.

Perceptions of interdisciplinary rounding practices

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To explore practitioner perspectives on the facilitators, barriers and outcomes associated with interdisciplinary rounding practices (IDR).

BACKGROUND

Interdisciplinary rounding practices is frequently used intervention to promote collaboration and patient-centred care in hospital units. Previous research supports that having IDR in place can lead to greater perceptions of collaboration and practitioner satisfaction; however, the practice does not always lead to better outcomes for patients. For IDR to be successful, unit leadership needs a greater understanding of facilitators and barriers as perceived by team members. At both the individual and organisational levels, there is limited understanding on what influences the success of IDR. This study seeks to explore factors influencing interdisciplinary rounding and perceived outcomes by team members.

DESIGN

A quasi-qualitative design was used to address the aim of this study. Four open-ended questions were emailed to practitioners across fifteen units in two academic health centres. All units identified as having IDR in place.

METHODS

A directed content analysis of practitioner responses was used to identify key themes. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was consulted for reporting of the results.

RESULTS

A total of 141 practitioners responded to the open-ended questions. Three themes emerged from the data: (a) setting the stage; (b) the work of the team; and 3) benefits to patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides a nuanced perspective of facilitators, barriers and potential outcomes associated with IDR. Future research is needed to gain additional perspective on the role the organisation plays in promoting a healthy workplace environment as well as providing patient-centred care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study provides insight into facilitators and barriers to conducting interdisciplinary rounding practices in the inpatient setting. Results can be useful to unit leaders and staff that advocate for more collaborative and patient-centred rounding practices.

CE: A Historical Review of Nurse-Physician Bedside Rounding

: The purpose of this article is to describe and analyze nurse involvement in hospital bedside rounding from 1873 to 1973. Interdisciplinary rounding is touted as a collaborative activity between nurses and physicians. Understanding the historical trends in nurse involvement in this process can shed light on the opportunities and barriers that clinical rounding presents today. This research was gathered using historical sources, both primary and secondary, and a social history framework. Primary sources included manuals for head nurses, nursing journals, and nursing student diaries.