ArticlePloS one2010
Relationships of the location and content of rounds to specialty, institution, patient-census, and team size.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Volume, High-Acuity, and High-Impact Learning: Tips and Tricks for Infectious Diseases Training Programs.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Article
- Family, nurse, and physician beliefs on family-centered rounds: A 21-site study.Journal of hospital medicine · 2022Article
- Service and Education: The Association Between Workload, Patient Complexity, and Teaching on Internal Medicine Inpatient Services.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Observational
- Capsule Commentary on Ratcliffe et al., "Service and Education: the Association Between Workload, Patient Complexity, and Teaching on Internal Medicine Inpatient Services".Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Article
- Prospective Observational Study on High-Value Care Topics Discussed on Multidisciplinary Rounds.Hospital pediatrics · 2018Observational
- The High-Value Care Rounding Tool: Development and Validity Evidence.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2018Article
- Attending Rounds: The HumptyDumptification of Medical Discourse.Journal of graduate medical education · 2016Article
- Rounds Today: A Qualitative Study of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Resident Perceptions.Journal of graduate medical education · 2016Article
- Interprofessional collaborative care characteristics and the occurrence of bedside interprofessional rounds: a cross-sectional analysis.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- A real-time locating system observes physician time-motion patterns during walk-rounds: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveExisting observational data describing rounds in teaching hospitals are 15 years old, predate duty-hour regulations, are limited to one institution, and do not include pediatrics. We sought to evaluate the effect of medical specialty, institution, patient-census, and team participants upon time at the bedside and education occurring on rounds. METHODS AND
participantsBetween December of 2007 and October of 2008 we performed 51 observations at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Seattle Children's Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, and the University of Washington Medical Center of 35 attending physicians. We recorded minutes spent on rounds in three location and seven activity categories, members of the care team, and patient-census.
resultsResults presented are means. Pediatric rounds had more participants (8.2 vs. 4.1 physicians, p<.001; 11.9 vs. 2.4 non-physicians, p<.001) who spent more minutes in hallways (96.9 min vs. 35.2 min, p<.001), fewer minutes at the bedside (14.6 vs. 38.2 min, p = .01) than internal medicine rounds. Multivariate regression modeling revealed that minutes at the bedside per patient was negatively associated with pediatrics (-2.77 adjusted bedside minutes; 95% CI -4.61 to -0.93; p<.001) but positively associated with the number of non-physician participants (0.12 adjusted bedside minutes per non physician participant; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17; p = <.001). Education minutes on rounds was positively associated with the presence of an attending physician (2.70 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 1.27 to 4.12; p<.001) and with one institution (1.39 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53; p = .02).
conclusionsPediatricians spent less time at the bedside on rounds than internal medicine physicians due to reasons other than patient-census or the number of participants in rounds. Compared to historical data, internal medicine rounds were spent more at the bedside engaged in patient care and communication, and less upon educational activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.