Perceptions of Teamwork in the Interprofessional Bedside Rounding Process

Beaird, Genevieve; Dent, John; Keim‐Malpass, Jessica; Muller, Abigail Guo Jian; Nelson, Nicole; Brashers, Valentina

doi:10.1097/jhq.0000000000000068

Cited by 12 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The University of Kentucky Albert B. Chandler Hospital has introduced Inter-Professional Teamwork Innovation Model (ITIM) using a team to include the bedside nurse, physician, pharmacist and care-facilitator in the rounding process. Each member of the rounding team has a role and is expected to actively participate, complementing each other and providing a unified care plan [18]. Innovations such as this and other pilot programs will contribute to long-term success and grassroots change of practice which will further lead to improved outcomes for patients.…”

Section: Collaborative Care Roundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The new diagnostic team

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) in the recently issued report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care outlined eight major recommendations to improve the quality and safety of diagnosis. The #1 recommendation was to improve teamwork in the diagnostic process. This is a major departure from the classical approach, where the physician is solely responsible for diagnosis. In the new, patient-centric vision, the core team encompasses the patient, the physician and the associated nursing staff, with each playing an active role in the process. The expanded diagnostic team includes pathologists, radiologists, allied health professionals, medical librarians, and others. We review the roles that each of these team members will need to assume, and suggest "first steps" that each new team member can take to achieve this new dynamic.

show abstract

Section: Collaborative Care Roundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The new diagnostic team

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(O’Leary et al, ) explored the effect of a bedside IDR on patients’ preferred and experienced role in decision‐making and activation and found no differences in these outcomes between patients receiving IDR and those that did not. (Beaird et al, ) concluded that patients exposed to IDR perceived higher levels of teamwork in their medical team compared to patients exposed to a more physician‐centric model. The results from our study support that IDR serves as an opportunity for the patient's voice to be incorporated into their care planning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While there is support that IDR benefits practitioners, the connection to improved patient outcomes is less clear. Some studies found improvement in patient satisfaction and perceptions of teamwork with IDR (Beaird et al, 2017); (Luthy et al, 2017); (Pritts & Hiller, 2014). However, multiple studies found no change in patient outcomes with the implementation of similar practices (Cornell, Townsend-Gervis, Vardaman, & Yates, 2014); (Malec, Mork, Hoffman, & Carlson, 2017); (O'Leary et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The face-to-face discussion can occur at the patient's bedside, in a conference room or as walking rounds in the hallway. Practitioners report improved collaboration and communication with structured interdisciplinary rounding practices (Gonzalo, Kuperman, Lehman, & Haidet, 2014); (O'Leary et al, 2011), and patients' perceptions of teamwork increased (Beaird et al, 2017). However, many hospital units still struggle with implementation of such practices (Hendricks, LaMothe, Kara, & Miller, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceptions of interdisciplinary rounding practices

Beaird

Baernholdt

White

2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The quality of patient experiences of care has been identified as a “critical indicator of healthcare performance” ([53], p.17). However, Beaird et al [54] and Pomey, Ghadiri, Karazivan, Fernandez, and Clavel [43] argued that more work was needed to include patients in the team.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring patient and family perceptions of team processes and outcomes in healthcare teams: questionnaire development and psychometric evaluation

Kilpatrick

Tchouaket

Paquette

et al. 2019

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is a lack of validated instruments examining dimensions of team functioning from the perspective of patients and families consistent with a conceptual framework. The study aimed to develop and assess the psychometric properties of the Patient-Perceptions of Team Effectiveness (PTE) questionnaire.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was undertaken in three studies. Data were collected from May–October 2016 for Study 1, April 2018-ongoing for Study 2, and October 2016 to June 2017 for Study 3. Online and paper versions of the self-administered questionnaire were available in English and in French. The initial questionnaire included 41 items. Study 1 included 320 respondents. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach alpha. Face validity (n = 250) was assessed using a structured questionnaire. Content validity was examined using subject matter experts and Spearman’s item-total correlations. Construct validity was examined using known group comparisons (i.e., clinical specialty, education, length of follow-up, reason of consultation). Content analysis was used for open-ended questions.ResultsThe questionnaire took 10 to 15 min to complete. Positive assessments were noted for instructions, formatting, font size and logical ordering of questions. In Study 1, reliability indices for the PTE-Overall, Team Processes and Outcomes subscales ranged from 0.72 to 0.84. Item-total correlations ranged from 0.551 to 0.794 (p < 0.001). Differences were noted between clinical specialties, education, length of follow-up, reason of consultation, low and high functioning teams. No differences were noted between English and French language respondents. Psychometric properties were re-assessed in Study 2 and 3 after unclear questions were reworked. Reliability indices for the subscales ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 and differences remained significant between low and high functioning teams.ConclusionThe final 43-item instrument is easy to administer to patients and families. The studies provide evidence of validity to support the propositions in the conceptual framework. The patient-level measures can be aggregated to the team, organizational or system level. The information can be used to assess healthcare team functioning in acute and primary care and determine the role patients and families are playing in teams. Further testing is needed with patients and families who are hospitalized or receiving care from teams in rural areas.

show abstract

Perceptions of Teamwork in the Interprofessional Bedside Rounding Process

Cited by 12 publications

References 14 publications

The new diagnostic team

The new diagnostic team

Perceptions of interdisciplinary rounding practices

Measuring patient and family perceptions of team processes and outcomes in healthcare teams: questionnaire development and psychometric evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About