ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2022
Conducting a good ward round: How do leaders do it?
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2022. 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.
- Communication on Rounds: The Role of Rounds Culture and Communication in Patient Care and Teaching.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Review
- Acute respiratory unit, RSCH Brighton: improving ward round culture and patient involvement in their care.Future healthcare journal · 2023Article
- Improving Thoracic Surgery Ward Round Quality and Enhancing Patient Safety in a Referral Centre.Cureus · 2023Article
- Exploring different stakeholders' perspectives on ward rounds in paediatric oncology: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Conducting a good ward round: How do leaders do it?Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesWard rounds (WRs) are complex social processes. Done well, WR discussions and decisions contribute to timely, safe, effective progression of care. However, literature highlights medical dominance; marginalisation or absence of other perspectives, safety risks and suboptimal resource use. This study examined leadership behaviours and what supported good interprofessional WRs, defined as enabling interprofessional collaboration and decision making which progresses patient care in a safe and timely manner. Deepening appreciation of this art should support learning and improvements.
methodMixed-method appreciative inquiry (AI) into how WRs go well and could go well more often. CONTEXT: daily interprofessional consultant-led WRs in a large adult critical care unit. DATA: ethnographic and structured observations (73 h, 348 patient reviews); AI conversations and interviews (71 participants). Inductive iterative analysis shaped by Activity Theory.
participants256 qualified healthcare professionals working in the unit.
resultsLeadership of good WRs supported (and minimized contradictions to): making good use of expertise and time, and effective communication. These three key activities required careful and skilled orchestration of contributions to each patient review, which was achieved through four distinct phases (a broadly predictable script), ensuring opportunity to contribute while maintaining focus and a productive pace. This expertise is largely tacit knowledge, learnt informally, which is difficult to analyse and articulate oneself, or explain to others. To make this easier, and thus support learning, we developed the metaphor of a conductor leading musicians.
conclusionsWhilst everyone contributes to the joint effort of delivering a good WR, WR leadership is key. It ensures effective use of time and diverse expertise, and coordinates contributions rather like a conductor working with musicians. Although WR needs and approaches vary across contexts, the key leadership activities we identified are likely to transfer to other settings.
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.