ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Improved team cohesion and experience following geographical cohorting of clinician teams.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospitalists frequently provide care to inpatients situated across numerous medical units, resulting in inefficiency, poor clinician experience and disjointed teamwork. We implemented geographical cohorting of clinician teams to improve team cohesion, efficiency and interprofessional team experience.
methodsWe conducted an interrupted time series study of medical inpatients at a single academic medical centre. Preintervention: July 2018-April 2019, intervention development: April 2019-May 2019 and the postintervention: June 2019-June 2020. The intervention included geographical cohorting of clinician teams onto dedicated inpatient medical wards, standardisation of unit-based interprofessional rounds and end-of-day unit-based huddles. The primary outcome was surveys of team experience and the secondary outcome was the number of pages to physicians (efficiency measure).
resultsA total of 6043 patients were included in the study: 2668 preintervention, 386 intervention development and 2989 postintervention. 3240 (53.6%) were female and two (<1.0%) were transgender. Postintervention versus preintervention team experience improved in: awareness of healthcare workers (HCWs) method to contact physicians (56.1% vs 19.0%, p<0.001), ease of contact of physician (82.5% vs 59.5%, p=0.001), timeliness of physician response (78.9% vs 61.9%, p=0.020), agreement of team on care plan (80.7% vs 73.8%, p=0.018) and care plan is communicated efficiently (71.9% postintervention vs 45.2% preintervention, p=0.005) and timely (68.4% postintervention vs 45.2% preintervention, p=0.003). Mean physician pages reduced by a postintervention estimate (factor) of -5.80 (95% CI: -6.30 to -5.29, p<0.001). Linear mixed-effects models of clinical patient outcomes demonstrated no significant changes.
conclusionsGeographical cohorting of inpatient teams was associated with improved efficiency and team experience outcomes.
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.