Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40955335›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Impact of Discharge Rounds on Patient Flow and Hospital Outcomes.

George Bechir, Mishame Anja

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

George BechirHospital Medicine, Franciscan Health, Munster, USA.
Mishame AnjaMedicine, Black Lion Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, ETH.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

acute care hospitalsdischarge planningdischarge roundshospital efficiencyhospital length of stayinterdisciplinary communicationmultidisciplinary roundspatient flowpatient safetyvirtual rounds

Identifiers

PMID40955335
PMCPMC12433610

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.