No abstract

No abstract

PurposeDyadic leadership models, in which two professionals jointly lead and share unit responsibilities, exemplifies a recent trend in health care. Nonetheless, much remains unknown about their benefits and drawbacks. In order to understand their potential impact, we conducted a review of literature evaluating dyad leadership models in health systems.Design/methodology/approachOur narrative review began with a search of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus using key terms related to dyads and leadership. The search yielded 307 articles. We screened titles/abstracts according to these criteria: (1) focus on dyadic leadership model, i.e. physician–nurse or clinician–administrator, (2) set in health care environment and (3) peer-reviewed with an evaluative component of dyadic model. This yielded 22 articles for full evaluation, of which six were relevant for this review.FindingsThese six articles contribute an assessment of (1) teamwork and communication perceptions and their changes through dyad implementation, (2) dyad model functionality within the health system, (3) lessons learned from dyad model implementation and (4) dyad model adoption and model fidelity.Research limitations/implicationsResearch in this area remains nascent, and most articles focused on implementation over evaluation. It is possible that some articles were excluded due to our methodology, which excluded nonEnglish articles.Practical implicationsFindings provide guidance for health care organizations seeking to implement dyadic leadership models. Rigorous studies are needed to establish the impact of dyadic leadership models on quality and patient outcomes.Originality/valueThis review consolidates evidence surrounding the implementation and evaluation of a leadership model gaining prominence in health care.

No abstract

Background: Interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) are increasingly employed by hospitals; however, there is no formal definition, structure, or framework.Objective: The purpose of this observational study was to document the heterogeneity of IDRs and assess the different characteristics associated with IDR functions.Designs, Settings, and Participants: Observation of IDR occurred at 27 hospitals that were purposively selected to ensure a mix of the following criteria: geographic region, provider type, for-profit status, population (e.g., urban, rural), and teaching status.Hospitals identified general medical floors covered by hospitalists for IDR observations. Intervention:The study team conducted hospital site visits to observe the implementation of IDR. A checklist was developed to record IDR structure and processes, content, and outcomes. Data from two content expert observers were reconciled, and a consensus was attained. Main Outcome and Measures:The study measures include two IDR functions: topics discussed during IDR (changes in medical treatment, responsibilities and shared understanding of goals and expectations, anticipation of discharge date and needs, anticipating follow-up care and service needs), and effective communication.Results: Hospitals varied significantly in IDR implementation. 51.9% included the "core" team (i.e., a physician, nurse, pharmacist, and case manager/social worker), though all included a case manager or social worker. Most (81.5%) occurred before noon. Content chiefly focused on medical care (74.1 to 92.6%) with patient responsibilities and preferences being less frequently discussed (25.9 to 40.7%). Bivariate analyses revealed that afternoon rounds were more likely to include dischargeȐrelated topics, such as patient/caregiver preferences (100% vs. 27.3%, p = .003) and follow-up needs (100% vs. 36.4%, p = .010).When IDR occurred at bedside, financial resources were more often assessed (100% vs. 34.8%, p = .015) and patient's ability to obtain medication was more often anticipated (75% vs. 21.7%, p = .031).