A scoping review of new implementations of interprofessional bedside rounding models to improve teamwork, care, and outcomes in hospitals.
Saved in:
| Title: | A scoping review of new implementations of interprofessional bedside rounding models to improve teamwork, care, and outcomes in hospitals. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Blakeney, Erin Abu-Rish, Chu, Frances, White, Andrew A., Smith Jr., G. Randy, Woodward, Kyla, Lavallee, Danielle C., Salas, Rachel Marie E., Beaird, Genevieve, Willgerodt, Mayumi A., Dang, Deborah, Dent, John M., Tanner, Elizabeth Ibby, Summerside, Nicole, Zierler, Brenda K., O'Brien, Kevin D., Weiner, Bryan J. |
| Source: | Journal of Interprofessional Care. May/Jun2024, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p411-426. 16p. |
| Subjects: | Teams in the workplace, Medical information storage & retrieval systems, Medical quality control, Interprofessional relations, Evidence gaps, Research funding, CINAHL database, Hospital patients, Patient care, Hospitals, Hospital rounds, Systematic reviews, MEDLINE, Rooms, Quality assurance, Health outcome assessment, Online information services, Psychology information storage & retrieval systems |
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Interprofessional Care is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13561820 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/13561820.2021.1980379 |
