Experiences and Needs of Core Participants in Surgical Ward Rounds: A Qualitative Exploratory Study.

Q2 Medicine
Helle Poulsen, Jane Clemensen, Jette Ammentorp, Poul-Erik Kofoed, Maiken Wolderslund
{"title":"Experiences and Needs of Core Participants in Surgical Ward Rounds: A Qualitative Exploratory Study.","authors":"Helle Poulsen, Jane Clemensen, Jette Ammentorp, Poul-Erik Kofoed, Maiken Wolderslund","doi":"10.2196/69578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical ward rounds (SWRs) are typically led by doctors, with limited involvement from key participants, including patients, family members, and bedside nurses. Despite the potential benefits of a more collaborative and person-centered approach, efforts to engage these stakeholders remain rare.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This qualitative exploratory study examined the experiences and needs of doctors, nurses, patients, and their relatives during SWRs as part of a Participatory Design process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected through ethnographic field studies, focus groups with the healthcare providers, patients and relatives, and dyadic interviews conducted as part of home visits to patients and their partners after discharge. Field notes and interview data were analyzed using systematic text condensation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lack of organization, traditional roles, and cultural norms compromised the quality, efficiency, and user experience of SWRs in multiple ways. SWRs were routine-driven, treatment-focused, and received lower priority than surgical tasks. Unpredictability resulted in unprepared participants and limited access for nurses, patients, and relatives to partake.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study identified a gap between the organizational and cultural frameworks governing the SWRs and the experiences and needs of key participants. Digital technologies were perceived as a potential solution to address some of these challenges.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrial: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/69578","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Surgical ward rounds (SWRs) are typically led by doctors, with limited involvement from key participants, including patients, family members, and bedside nurses. Despite the potential benefits of a more collaborative and person-centered approach, efforts to engage these stakeholders remain rare.

Objective: This qualitative exploratory study examined the experiences and needs of doctors, nurses, patients, and their relatives during SWRs as part of a Participatory Design process.

Methods: Data were collected through ethnographic field studies, focus groups with the healthcare providers, patients and relatives, and dyadic interviews conducted as part of home visits to patients and their partners after discharge. Field notes and interview data were analyzed using systematic text condensation.

Results: Lack of organization, traditional roles, and cultural norms compromised the quality, efficiency, and user experience of SWRs in multiple ways. SWRs were routine-driven, treatment-focused, and received lower priority than surgical tasks. Unpredictability resulted in unprepared participants and limited access for nurses, patients, and relatives to partake.

Conclusions: The study identified a gap between the organizational and cultural frameworks governing the SWRs and the experiences and needs of key participants. Digital technologies were perceived as a potential solution to address some of these challenges.

Clinicaltrial:

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Participatory Medicine
Journal of Participatory Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信