ArticlePloS one2026
Interdisciplinary, interprofessional, patient- and family-centered rounds: A systematic mapping review protocol of global interventions and outcomes.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective communication among healthcare disciplines, professions, and patients is crucial for delivering coordinated inpatient care and achieving improved patient outcomes. The practice of daily rounds has a long history, evolving over time in structure and in the individuals involved. Rounds increasingly include diverse healthcare professionals and, in some cases, patients and families. However, inconsistent terminology-such as interprofessional, interdisciplinary, multiprofessional, and multidisciplinary-complicates research and implementation of team rounding practices. Existing reviews have explored interprofessional and patient- and family-centered rounds but less frequently addressed interdisciplinary rounds and global settings. We will conduct a systematic mapping review to describe the landscape of literature on interdisciplinary, interprofessional, and patient- and family-centered rounds in hospital settings worldwide (PROSPERO CRD420250655348). We aim to examine how daily care rounds are defined, who participates, what frameworks are utilized, and where these practices are studied. Additionally, we will identify reported strategies for implementing rounds and measures used to assess outcomes on patients, families, clinicians, healthcare teams, and institutions. Following PRISMA-P guidelines, we will include peer-reviewed quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies published since 1990, with no geographic or language restrictions. Eligible studies must focus on daily inpatient rounds involving multiple professions, disciplines, and/or patients and families, and report outcomes or implementation strategies. Data will be extracted on study characteristics, rounding practices, interventions, outcomes, and barriers or facilitators to implementation. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Our review will provide a comprehensive synthesis of global rounding practices, highlight gaps in definitions and implementation strategies, and inform future interventions to enhance team communication in diverse hospital settings. By capturing a broad range of studies, this work will support efforts to standardize and expand team rounds to improve hospital care coordination worldwide.
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.