Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40916448›Full record

ReviewBJPsych bulletin2025

How is the in-patient psychiatric ward round understood in research literature? Scoping review.

Benjamin Williams, Siobhan Richardson, Georgia Jameson, Oluwatomilola Olagunju

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJPsych bulletin, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Benjamin WilliamsConsultant Psychiatrist, North View, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3144-5390
Siobhan RichardsonAdvanced Clinical Practitioner, North View, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Georgia JamesonEquality, Diversity and Inclusion Team, EDI Partner, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Oluwatomilola OlagunjuResident Doctor, Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Prescot, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIMS AND

methodThis scoping review examines the literature on psychiatric in-patient ward rounds, a crucial and ubiquitous but understudied component of psychiatric care. We sought to examine the methods and perspectives used in research on ward rounds and identify recommendations for practice.

resultsThe review identified 26 studies from diverse in-patient settings but predominantly UK-based, which made 21 recommendations for practice. The commonest methods used were staff surveys and patient interviews. Patient experience, structure, efficiency and power dynamics were the commonest research foci. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Key recommendations for improving psychiatric ward rounds include reducing participant numbers, increasing patient involvement, structured documentation and regular scheduling. Despite weak empirical evidence supporting these suggestions, they are seen as feasible starting points for quality improvement. The review calls for future research to triangulate patient and staff reports with direct observation to better assess ward round effectiveness and outcomes.

Indexed as

general psychiatryin-patientmultidisciplinary team meetingWard round

Identifiers

PMID40916448
PMCPMC13386320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.