Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27585973›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Interprofessional collaborative care characteristics and the occurrence of bedside interprofessional rounds: a cross-sectional analysis.

Jed D Gonzalo, Judy Himes, Brian McGillen, Vicki Shifflet, Erik Lehman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jed D GonzaloMedicine and Public Health Sciences, Health Systems Education, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA. jgonzalo@hmc.psu.edu.
Judy HimesNursing Medical Services, Neuroscience, and Cancer Institute, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA.
Brian McGillenDivision of General Internal Medicine, Penn State Hershey Medical Center - HO34, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA.
Vicki ShiffletGeneral Medicine Acute Care Unit, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA.
Erik LehmanPublic Health Sciences, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterprofessional collaboration improves the quality of medical care, but integration into inpatient workflow has been limited. Identification of systems-based factors promoting or diminishing bedside interprofessional rounds (BIR), one method of interprofessional collaboration, is critical for potential improvements in collaboration in hospital settings. The objective of this study was to determine whether the percentage of bedside interprofessional rounds in 18 hospital-based clinical units is attributable to spatial, staffing, patient, or nursing perception characteristics.

methodsA prospective, cross-sectional assessment of data obtained from nursing audits in one large academic medical center on a sampling of hospitalized pediatric and adult patients in 18 units from November 2012 to October 2013 was performed. The primary outcome was the percentage of bedside interprofessional rounds, defined as encounters including one attending-level physician and a nurse discussing the case at the patient's bedside. Logistic regression models were constructed with four covariate domains: (1) spatial characteristics (unit type, bed number, square feet per bed), (2) staffing characteristics (nurse-to-patient ratios, admitting services to unit), (3) patient-level characteristics (length of stay, severity of illness), and (4) nursing perceptions of collegiality, staffing, and use of rounding scripts.

resultsOf 29,173 patients assessed during 1241 audited unit-days, 21,493 patients received BIR (74 %, range 35-97 %). Factors independently associated with increased occurrence of bedside interprofessional rounds were: intensive care unit (odds ratio 9.63, [CI 5.30-17.42]), intermediate care unit (odds ratio 2.84, [CI 1.37-5.87]), hospital length of stay 5-7 days (odds ratio 1.89, [CI, 1.05-3.38]) and >7 days (odds ratio 2.27, [CI, 1.28-4.02]), use of rounding script (odds ratio 2.20, [CI 1.15-4.23]), and perceived provider/leadership support (odds ratio 3.25, [CI 1.83-5.77]).

conclusionsVariation of bedside interprofessional rounds was more attributable to unit type and perceived support rather than spatial or relationship characteristics amongst providers. Strategies for transforming the value of hospital care may require a reconfiguration of care delivery toward more integrated practice units.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorInterprofessional RelationsAcademic Medical CentersAdultChildCritical CareCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth Facility SizeHospitalizationHospitals, PediatricHospitals, UniversityHumansInpatientsHealth services researchHospital-based medicineInterprofessional collaborative carePatient-centered careQuality improvementRelational coordinationTeam-based care

Identifiers

PMID27585973
PMCPMC5007992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.