ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Enhancing patient satisfaction and experience through bedside interdisciplinary rounds: a quality improvement study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInterdisciplinary rounds (IDRs) involve collaborative patient care where healthcare professionals from various disciplines meet to discuss and plan patient management. In this project, bedside IDRswere introduced at our hospital to enhance care quality, improve communication among medical teams and increase patient satisfaction. METHODOLOGY: After educating the staff, bedside IDRs were implemented with a team consisting of hospitalists, medical residents, nurses, nurse leaders, nutritionists, case managers and social workers, who gathered at each patient's bedside to discuss treatment plans and involve patients and their families in real-time discussions. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using Press Ganey (PG) scores over a 7-month period, comparing them with pre-implementation scores. Additionally, staff feedback on workflow and communication was gathered through pre- and postsurveys.
resultsOver 7 months, bedside IDRs led to significant improvements in patient satisfaction and physician-patient communication, as reflected in PG scores. Patients reported feeling more respected and listened to, with a greater understanding of their disease and treatment plan. Staff surveys showed notable improvements in inter-departmental communication and discharge planning effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Bedside IDRs improved key patient care aspects, including communication, respect and understanding of treatment plans. By involving the entire healthcare team in patient discussions, a more collaborative and patient-centred approach was fostered, leading to patients feeling heard and respected. A clearer, unified treatment plan improved patients' understanding of their care. Despite initial coordination challenges, these were addressed with standardised scheduling. Overall, bedside IDRs resulted in better communication among providers, more comprehensive care plans, timely discharges and increased patient satisfaction, ultimately enhancing healthcare delivery.
conclusionUltimately, bedside IDRs contributed to improved healthcare delivery, with positive outcomes on different aspects. These findings highlight the potential of bedside IDRs to improve the quality of care and patient satisfaction in hospital settings.
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.