Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30119624›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Exploring reasoning mechanisms in ward rounds: a critical realist multiple case study.

Paul Perversi, John Yearwood, Emilia Bellucci, Andrew Stranieri, Jim Warren, Frada Burstein, Heather Mays, Alan Wolff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The three-stage assessment to support hospital-home care coordination in Tshwane, South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2020
    Article
  7. The purpose of ward rounds.Irish journal of medical science · 2019
    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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul PerversiSchool of Information Technology, Deakin University, Melbourne Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. paperver@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9184-4302
John YearwoodSchool of Information Technology, Deakin University, Melbourne Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Emilia BellucciSchool of Business, Deakin University, Melbourne Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Andrew StranieriCentre for Informatics and Applied Optimisation, Federation University, University Drive, Mt Helen, VIC, 3350, Australia.
Jim WarrenDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Auckland, 38 Princes Street, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand.
Frada BursteinCaulfield School of Information Technology, Monash University, 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, VIC, 3145, Australia.
Heather MaysCaulfield School of Information Technology, Monash University, 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, VIC, 3145, Australia.
Alan WolffWimmera Health Care Group, 83 Baillie Street, Horsham, VIC, 3400, Australia.
Deakin University · AUCaulfield Hospital · AUFederation University · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP140100047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWard rounds are an important and ubiquitous element of hospital care with a history extending well over a century. Although originally intended as a means of educating medical trainees and junior doctors, over time they have become focused on supporting clinical practice. Surprisingly, given their ubiquity and importance, they are under-researched and inadequately understood. This study aims to contribute knowledge in human reasoning within medical teams, meeting a pressing need for research concerning the reasoning occurring in rounds.

methodsThe research reported here aimed to improve the understanding of ward round reasoning by conducting a critical realist case study exploring the collaborative group reasoning mechanisms in the ward rounds of two hospitals in Victoria, Australia. The data collection involved observing rounds, interviewing medical practitioners and holding focus group meetings.

resultsNine group reasoning mechanisms concerning sharing, agreeing and recording information in the categories of information accumulation, sense-making and decision-making were identified, together forming a program theory of ward round reasoning. In addition, themes spanning across mechanisms were identified, further explaining ward round reasoning and suggesting avenues for future exploration. Themes included the use of various criteria, tensions involving mechanisms, time factors, medical roles and hierarchies.

conclusionsThis paper contributes to the literature by representing rounds in a manner that strengthens understanding of the form of the group reasoning occurring within, thus supporting theory-based evaluation strategies, redesigned practices and training enhancements.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEducation, MedicalPatients' RoomsTeaching RoundsThinkingCooperative BehaviorFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleVictoriaCase studyCausal mechanismsCritical realismDecision-makingMedical reasoningProgram theorySense-makingTeamworkWard rounds

Identifiers

PMID30119624
PMCPMC6098637
OpenAlexW2885390139

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.