SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2025
Optimizing ward rounds: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to enhance patient safety.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Exploring the Potential of Ambient AI for Inpatient Documentation: A Qualitative Study with Junior Doctors.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Improving Opportunities for Patients to Raise Concerns During Ward Rounds: A Quality Improvement Project.Cureus · 2026Article
- A Simple Solution for a Complex Problem: The "Sterile Cockpit" to Improve Ward Rounds.World journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Potentially Preventable Mortality After Elective Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Insights From a National Surgical Mortality Audit.ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoor quality ward rounds contribute to a large proportion of patient complications, delayed discharge, and increased hospital cost. This systematic review investigated all interventions aiming to improve patient and process-based outcomes in ward rounds.
methodsThis systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023394325). MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycInfo were searched for studies with interventions aiming to improve ward round processes or patient outcomes in hospital settings. Studies were excluded if there was no baseline comparator or they were not in the ward round setting. Interventions were coded as checklist interventions (that is electronic or paper-based pro formas, templates, and checklists), structure interventions (that is defined rules or protocol to guide or standardize conduct), or other interventions. Outcomes were assessed via meta-analyses using the I2 statistic, Cochran's Q P value, and random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies.
resultsThis review included 84 studies, from 18 countries, in 23 specialties, involving 43 570 patients. Checklist interventions significantly reduced ICU length of stay, improved overall documentation, and did not increase ward round duration. Structure interventions did not increase the time spent per patient or impact 30-day readmission rates or patient length of stay.
conclusionThis is the first systematic review with meta-analyses synthesizing the evidence of all ward round interventions targeted at improving patient and process outcomes. Results from this review should be used to inform guidelines for the 'ideal ward round'.
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.