BACKGROUND:Effective collaboration and teamwork is essential in providing safe and effective care. Research reveals deficiencies in teamwork on medical units involving hospitalists.OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess the impact of an intervention, Structured Inter‐Disciplinary Rounds (SIDR), on nurses' ratings of collaboration and teamwork.METHODS:The study was a controlled trial involving an intervention and control hospitalist unit. The intervention, SIDR, combined a structured format for communication with a forum for regular interdisciplinary meetings. We asked nurses to rate the quality of communication and collaboration with hospitalists using a 5‐point ordinal scale. We also assessed teamwork and safety climate using a validated instrument. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the impact on length of stay (LOS) and cost using both a concurrent and historic control.RESULTS:A total of 49 of 58 (84%) nurses completed surveys. A larger percentage of nurses rated the quality of communication and collaboration with hospitalists as high or very high on the intervention unit compared to the control unit (80% vs. 54%; P = 0.05). Nurses also rated the teamwork and safety climate significantly higher on the intervention unit (P = 0.008 and P = 0.03 for teamwork and safety climate, respectively). Multivariable analyses demonstrated no difference in the adjusted LOS and an inconsistent effect on cost.CONCLUSIONS:SIDR had a positive effect on nurses' ratings of collaboration and teamwork on a hospitalist unit, yet no impact on LOS and cost. Further study is required to assess the impact of SIDR on patient safety measures. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2010. © 2010 Society of Hospital Medicine.

PCBR had no impact on patients' perceptions of shared decision-making, activation or satisfaction with care. Additional research is needed to identify optimal approaches that can be reliably implemented in hospital settings to improve patient-centred care.

Non-housestaff medicine services are growing rapidly in academic medical centers (AMCs), partly driven by efforts to comply with resident duty hour restrictions. Hospitalists have emerged as a solution to providing these services given their commitment to delivering efficient and high-quality care and the field's rapid growth. However, limited evidence is available on designing these services, including the similarities and differences of existing ones. We describe nonhousestaff medicine services at 5 AMCs in order to share our experiences and outline important considerations in service development. We discuss common challenges in building and sustaining these models along with local institutional factors that affect decision making. Keys to success include ensuring an equitable system for scheduling and staffing, fostering opportunities for scholarly activities and academic promotion (defining the ''academic hospitalist''), and providing compensation that supports recruitment and retention of hospitalists. With further work hour restrictions expected in the future and increased requests for surgical comanagement, the relationship between AMCs and hospitalists will continue to evolve. To succeed in developing hospitalist faculty who follow long careers in hospital medicine, academic leadership must carefully plan for and evaluate the methods of providing these clinical services while expanding on our academic mission.

No abstract