No abstract

Patient perceptions of teamwork have been a relatively undiscovered domain. Our study investigated the use of the Patients' Insights and Views of Teamwork (PIVOT) survey on an acute cardiology unit in an academic teaching hospital with patients receiving Rounding with Heart, an interprofessional bedside rounding initiative, and others receiving traditional rounding processes. Sixty-three subjects were surveyed during their hospital stay. We found a significant difference (p = .006) in PIVOT scores between those receiving interprofessional rounding and those not receiving this rounding structure. In an item-by-item analysis, four specific items were found to be significant which were supported by analysis of qualitative data. Observations of the structured interprofessional rounding process by our research team reveal themes that emerged from observations: (1) openness/inclusivity, (2) patient-centeredness, (3) attending role/shared leadership, (4) nonconfrontational learning, (5) efficacy, and (6) team at bedside. Our results indicate that patients may be able to recognize the teamwork in the structured bedside rounding process and that interfacing with the team may be an important component to patients. We conclude that patient perceptions of teamwork are a valuable informant to modeling collaborative practices, and there are key observable components to the structured rounding model that may foster collaboration among different disciplines.

No 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.

No abstract