Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29475980›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2019

Patient participation in inpatient ward rounds on acute inpatient medical wards: a descriptive study.

Bernice Redley, Lauren McTier, Mari Botti, Alison Hutchinson, Harvey Newnham, Donald Campbell, Tracey Bucknall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Creating opportunities for patient participation in managing medications across transitions of care through formal and informal modes of communication.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Bernice RedleySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2376-3989
Lauren McTierSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Mari BottiSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Alison HutchinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Harvey NewnhamGeneral Medicine, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Donald CampbellGeneral Medicine, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Tracey BucknallSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeaningful partnering with patients is advocated to enhance care delivery. Little is known about how this is operationalised at the point of care during hospital ward rounds, where decision-making concerning patient care frequently occurs.

objectiveDescribe participation of patients, with differing preferences for participation, during ward rounds in acute medical inpatient services.

methodsNaturalistic, multimethod design. Data were collected using surveys and observations of ward rounds at two hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Using convenience sampling, a stratified sample of acute general medical patients were recruited. Prior to observation and interview, patient responses to the Control Preference Scale were used to stratify them into three groups representing diverse participation preferences: active control where the patient makes decisions; shared control where the patient prefers to make decisions jointly with clinicians; and passive control where the patient prefers clinicians make decisions.

resultsOf the 52 patients observed over 133 ward rounds, 30.8% (n=16) reported an active control preference for participation in decision-making during ward rounds, 25% (n=13) expressed shared control preference and 44.2% (n=23) expressed low control preference. Patients' participation was observed in 75% (n=85) of ward rounds, but few rounds (18%, n=20) involved patient contribution to decisions about their care. Clinicians prompted patient participation in 54% of rounds; and in 15% patients initiated their own participation. Thematic analysis of qualitative observation and patient interview data revealed two themes,

conclusionsParticipation in ward rounds was similar for patients irrespective of control preference. This study demonstrates the need to better understand clinician roles in supporting strategies that promote patient participation in day-to-day hospital care.

Indexed as

HospitalsInpatientsPatient ParticipationTeaching RoundsAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle Agedcommunicationpatient-centred carequalitative researchrisk managementteamwork

Identifiers

PMID29475980
PMCPMC6860730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.