ArticleJMIR human factors2016
Impact of Structured Rounding Tools on Time Allocation During Multidisciplinary Rounds: An Observational Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Standardized ward rounds in the intensive care unit].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Review
- The intensive care unit balancing act: integrated staffing models for better patient ratios.Critical care science · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- The portfolio effect: an opportunity for improving handoffs quality in ICU.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent research has shown evidence of disproportionate time allocation for patient communication during multidisciplinary rounds (MDRs). Studies have shown that patients discussed later during rounds receive lesser time.
objectiveThe aim of our study was to investigate whether disproportionate time allocation effects persist with the use of structured rounding tools.
methodsUsing audio recordings of rounds (N=82 patients), we compared time allocation and communication breakdowns between a problem-based Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan (SOAP) and a system-based Handoff Intervention Tool (HAND-IT) rounding tools.
resultsWe found no significant linear dependence of the order of patient presentation on the time spent or on communication breakdowns for both structured tools. However, for the problem-based tool, there was a significant linear relationship between the time spent on discussing a patient and the number of communication breakdowns (P<.05)--with an average of 1.04 additional breakdowns with every 120 seconds in discussion.
conclusionsThe use of structured rounding tools potentially mitigates disproportionate time allocation and communication breakdowns during rounds, with the more structured HAND-IT, almost completely eliminating such effects. These results have potential implications for planning, prioritization, and training for time management during MDRs.
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.