ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
A Qualitative Study of Patient and Interprofessional Healthcare Team Member Experiences of Bedside Interdisciplinary Rounds at a VA: Language, Teamwork, and Trust.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Communication on Rounds: The Role of Rounds Culture and Communication in Patient Care and Teaching.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and interprofessional healthcare team member experiences of bedside interdisciplinary rounds (BIDR) are generally positive. Overall, there is large heterogeneity in existing BIDR frameworks, and best practices have not been defined.
objectiveUnderstand patients' and interprofessional healthcare team members' experiences of BIDR.
settingAcademic VA Medical Center (VAMC) with daily structured BIDR.
participantsInpatients, nurses, pharmacists, and care coordinators who participated in BIDR.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with study participants about their experiences with BIDR between January and June 2020. All interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. We used thematic analysis to identify key themes.
resultsWe interviewed 14 inpatients and 18 interprofessional healthcare team members, including nurses, pharmacists, and care coordinators. Patients participating in BIDR reported positive perceptions of being included in the discussion of their healthcare plans and increased trust in providers; patient discomfort resulted from physician use of technical language and from being presented with unclear, vague care plans. Interdisciplinary healthcare team members participating in BIDR reported an increased understanding, respect, and trust for other team members and improved patient care; challenges were posed by lack of supportive structural elements to interprofessional workflow and prolonged physician presentations.
conclusionsBIDR can build trust between patients and healthcare providers and within the interprofessional team by creating a setting where teamwork interactions can be observed. Based on our findings, we recommend trust-building practices for BIDR, which include sharing BIDR goals with patients, using patient-centered language, creating structures for interprofessional inclusion, defining team roles, using standardized communication, and addressing interprofessional inputs in real time.
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.