ReviewCureus2025
Impact of Discharge Rounds on Patient Flow and Hospital Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Discharge delays are a common and costly problem in hospitals, exposing patients to preventable risks while straining system capacity. Discharge rounds are structured daily meetings designed to identify barriers and coordinate care, and have emerged as a potential solution, yet implementation varies widely across institutions. This narrative review examined 38 studies published between 2010 and 2024 that evaluated discharge rounds in adult acute care hospitals. The evidence demonstrated that outcomes depend more on execution than on the concept itself. Hybrid formats that combine in-person and virtual participation improved attendance and preserved communication quality. Early morning rounds of limited duration facilitated timely discharges and aligned better with hospital operations. A lean but interdisciplinary core team of hospitalists, case managers, and nurses was consistently effective, with pharmacists and social workers adding value in select populations. Nursing participation models required tailoring. Bedside nurse involvement proved beneficial in high-acuity settings, while charge nurse representation was effective in more stable units. Geographic cohorting of physicians reduced inefficiency from multi-floor coverage, although handoffs raised continuity concerns. Across all models, the most successful rounds focused their discussion on discharge readiness, specific barriers, assigned responsibilities, and clear timelines rather than broad clinical debates. Programs that lacked structure or drifted from this focus often failed to achieve measurable benefits. In conclusion, discharge rounds can reduce length of stay and improve hospital efficiency, but only when carefully designed. Hospitals seeking to implement or refine discharge rounds should prioritize format, timing, team composition, and discussion focus while adapting to local context.
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.