Anping Xie, E. A. Barany, Elizabeth K. Tanner, E. Blakeney, Mona N. Bahouth, Ginger C. Hanson, Bryan R. Hansen, Kathryn M. McDonald, Rachel Marie E. Salas, Tenise Shakes, Heather Watson, Elizabeth K. Zink, Dorna P. Hairston
{"title":"Interprofessional Collaboration and Patient/Family Engagement on Rounds in a Comprehensive Stroke Center: A Mixed-Methods Study","authors":"Anping Xie, E. A. Barany, Elizabeth K. Tanner, E. Blakeney, Mona N. Bahouth, Ginger C. Hanson, Bryan R. Hansen, Kathryn M. McDonald, Rachel Marie E. Salas, Tenise Shakes, Heather Watson, Elizabeth K. Zink, Dorna P. Hairston","doi":"10.1097/qmh.0000000000000437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Daily rounds provide an opportunity for interprofessional collaboration and patient/family engagement, which are critical to stroke care. As part of a quality improvement program, we conducted a baseline assessment to examine interprofessional collaboration and patient/family engagement during the current rounding process in a 12-bed comprehensive stroke center. Findings from the baseline assessment will be used to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of a new rounding model.\n \n \n \n The baseline assessment used a mixed-methods approach with a convergent parallel design. Although observations of the current rounding process were conducted to quantitatively assess interprofessional collaboration and patient/family engagement on rounds, qualitative interviews were conducted with different stakeholders to identify strengths and weaknesses of the current rounding process, as well as suggestions for facilitating interprofessional collaboration and patient/family engagement.\n \n \n \n We observed 103 table rounds and 99 bedside rounds and conducted 30 interviews with patients, families, and clinicians. Although the current process was perceived to facilitate interprofessional collaboration, the participation of nurses and other health care professionals on rounds was inconsistent due to competing clinical duties. Good practices for engaging patients and families during bedside rounds were also performed inconsistently.\n \n \n \n These findings lead to recommendations for revising the rounding process with poststroke patients, utilizing a more interprofessional collaborative approach with focus on patient/family engagement.\n","PeriodicalId":20986,"journal":{"name":"Quality Management in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality Management in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/qmh.0000000000000437","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Daily rounds provide an opportunity for interprofessional collaboration and patient/family engagement, which are critical to stroke care. As part of a quality improvement program, we conducted a baseline assessment to examine interprofessional collaboration and patient/family engagement during the current rounding process in a 12-bed comprehensive stroke center. Findings from the baseline assessment will be used to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of a new rounding model.
The baseline assessment used a mixed-methods approach with a convergent parallel design. Although observations of the current rounding process were conducted to quantitatively assess interprofessional collaboration and patient/family engagement on rounds, qualitative interviews were conducted with different stakeholders to identify strengths and weaknesses of the current rounding process, as well as suggestions for facilitating interprofessional collaboration and patient/family engagement.
We observed 103 table rounds and 99 bedside rounds and conducted 30 interviews with patients, families, and clinicians. Although the current process was perceived to facilitate interprofessional collaboration, the participation of nurses and other health care professionals on rounds was inconsistent due to competing clinical duties. Good practices for engaging patients and families during bedside rounds were also performed inconsistently.
These findings lead to recommendations for revising the rounding process with poststroke patients, utilizing a more interprofessional collaborative approach with focus on patient/family engagement.
期刊介绍:
Quality Management in Health Care (QMHC) is a peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for our readers to explore the theoretical, technical, and strategic elements of health care quality management. The journal''s primary focus is on organizational structure and processes as these affect the quality of care and patient outcomes. In particular, it:
-Builds knowledge about the application of statistical tools, control charts, benchmarking, and other devices used in the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of care and of patient outcomes;
-Encourages research in and evaluation of the results of various organizational strategies designed to bring about quantifiable improvements in patient outcomes;
-Fosters the application of quality management science to patient care processes and clinical decision-making;
-Fosters cooperation and communication among health care providers, payers and regulators in their efforts to improve the quality of patient outcomes;
-Explores links among the various clinical, technical, administrative, and managerial disciplines involved in patient care, as well as the role and responsibilities of organizational governance in ongoing quality management.