ReviewHCA healthcare journal of medicine2025
A New Paradigm in Hospital Medicine: Evaluating the Effects of Geographical Cohorting on Health Care Delivery.
Review in HCA healthcare journal of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Geographical cohorting in hospital settings represents a significant shift from traditional patient rounding practices and aims to enhance the efficiency of health care delivery. This model assigns hospitalists to a particular inpatient unit, where most of their patients are located. While this model has several benefits, including streamlining health care procedures, optimizing resource allocation, and fostering better provider communication, its implementation is not without its challenges. Methods: Our methodology for researching geographical cohorting involved a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed studies, surveys, and retrospective analyses. We utilized academic databases, such as PubMed, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, to identify relevant articles. Keywords used in the search included "geographic cohorting," "geographic rounding," "hospitalist," "patient outcomes," "provider satisfaction," and "hospital-acquired infections." Conclusion: Geographical rounding has been associated with a reduction in the incidence of hospital-acquired infections and other adverse outcomes, suggesting its potential to create a safer patient care environment. However, problems such as increased interruptions, indirect care time, and the possibility of diminished interpersonal communication highlight the intricacy involved in successfully implementing such a model. The adoption of geographical cohorting is further complicated by operational problems, such as the necessity for major operational expenditure and patient flow management. Notwithstanding these difficulties, research has shown mixed results regarding geographic cohorting, with some studies suggesting potential advantages, such as enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration and a decline in provider burnout. However, its impact on patient outcomes, like in-patient stay and satisfaction, is inconsistent.
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.