Victoria Ando, Alexia Cavin-Trombert, David Gachoud, Matteo Monti
{"title":"Does the use of structured interventions to guide ward rounds affect patient outcomes? A systematic review.","authors":"Victoria Ando, Alexia Cavin-Trombert, David Gachoud, Matteo Monti","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ward rounds are an essential activity occurring in hospital settings. Despite their fundamental role in guiding patient care, they have no standardised approach. Implementation of structured interventions during ward rounds was shown to improve outcomes such as efficiency, documentation and communication. Whether these improvements have an impact on clinical outcomes is unclear. Our systematic review assessed whether structured interventions to guide ward rounds affect patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was carried out in May 2023 on Embase, Medline, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Library (Wiley) and Google Scholar, and a backward and forward citation search in January 2024. We included peer-reviewed, original studies assessing the use of structured interventions during bedside ward rounds (BWRs) on clinical outcomes. All inpatient hospital settings where BWRs are performed were included. We excluded papers looking at board, teaching or medication rounds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search strategy yielded 29 studies. Two were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 27 were quasi-experimental interventional studies. The majority (79%) were conducted in intensive care units. The main clinical outcomes reported were mortality, infectious complications, length of stay (LOS) and duration of mechanical ventilation (DoMV). Mortality, LOS and rates of urinary tract and central-line associated bloodstream infections did not seem to be affected, positively or negatively, by interventions structuring BWRs, while evidence was conflicting regarding their effects on rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia and DoMV, with a signal towards improved outcomes. Studies were generally of low-to-moderate quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The impact of structured interventions during BWRs on clinical outcomes remains inconclusive. Higher quality research focusing on multicentric RCTs or on prospective pre-post trials with concurrent cohorts, matched for key characteristics, is needed.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023412637.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018039","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Ward rounds are an essential activity occurring in hospital settings. Despite their fundamental role in guiding patient care, they have no standardised approach. Implementation of structured interventions during ward rounds was shown to improve outcomes such as efficiency, documentation and communication. Whether these improvements have an impact on clinical outcomes is unclear. Our systematic review assessed whether structured interventions to guide ward rounds affect patient outcomes.
Methods: A systematic search was carried out in May 2023 on Embase, Medline, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Library (Wiley) and Google Scholar, and a backward and forward citation search in January 2024. We included peer-reviewed, original studies assessing the use of structured interventions during bedside ward rounds (BWRs) on clinical outcomes. All inpatient hospital settings where BWRs are performed were included. We excluded papers looking at board, teaching or medication rounds.
Results: Our search strategy yielded 29 studies. Two were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 27 were quasi-experimental interventional studies. The majority (79%) were conducted in intensive care units. The main clinical outcomes reported were mortality, infectious complications, length of stay (LOS) and duration of mechanical ventilation (DoMV). Mortality, LOS and rates of urinary tract and central-line associated bloodstream infections did not seem to be affected, positively or negatively, by interventions structuring BWRs, while evidence was conflicting regarding their effects on rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia and DoMV, with a signal towards improved outcomes. Studies were generally of low-to-moderate quality.
Conclusion: The impact of structured interventions during BWRs on clinical outcomes remains inconclusive. Higher quality research focusing on multicentric RCTs or on prospective pre-post trials with concurrent cohorts, matched for key characteristics, is needed.
期刊介绍：
BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement.
The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
