ArticleBMC medical education2025
Enhancing ward rounds for older patients with frailty: a modified Delphi process.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite their prevalence, ward round practices are not well described, leading to challenges in achieving proficiency. We aimed to identify consensus-based content items for conducting ward rounds with older patients with frailty to provide clearer guidelines and enhanced understanding of best practices for medical professionals.
methodsA nationwide Danish five-round Delphi study was conducted during 2023. Geriatric medicine (30) and medical communication (5) experts were invited to participate. The participants' comments and an iterative thematic approach were used to identify and refine content items and themes, after which participants assessed items for consensus. Consensus was defined as 75% of participants voting 7-9 on a 1-9 Likert scale. Items without consensus returned to the next Delphi round with elimination if no consensus was reached after the second assessment.
resultsDelphi study response rates were 26(74%), 21(81%), 18(86%), 13(72%), and 11(85%) in Delphi rounds 1-5, respectively. Experts reached consensus on 108 content items on conducting ward rounds with older patients with frailty. Items were organised into four themes: (1) preparing ward rounds, (2) conducting ward rounds, (3) competencies, (4) circumstances related to the patient group. Ward round preparation and the conduction of ward round detailed the process of managing older inpatients with frailty, including conducting a holistic review of patient history and functional status, as well as improving the environment, such as by reducing noise. Competencies and patient circumstances related to the patient group included knowledge, skills, and attitudes to improve ward round quality, including flexibility in terms of reading patient cues and adjusting content to changes in cognition and alertness and knowledge on how to communicate with patients living with cognitive impairment.
conclusionsGeriatric medicine and medical communication experts reached consensus on 108 content items for conducting ward rounds with older patients with frailty. The items were grouped into four themes: preparing for ward rounds, conducting ward rounds, required competencies, and patient-related circumstances. The authors believe that this study serves as a valuable resource for medical training and future research.
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.