Camille R Petri, Atulita Punnamaraju, Christine P Beltran, Amy M Sullivan, Amy P Cohen, Jacqueline FitzGerald, Asha M Anandaiah
{"title":"An Attending-Directed Intervention to Enhance Interprofessional Teaching on ICU Rounds.","authors":"Camille R Petri, Atulita Punnamaraju, Christine P Beltran, Amy M Sullivan, Amy P Cohen, Jacqueline FitzGerald, Asha M Anandaiah","doi":"10.1093/atsscholar/aapag060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Interprofessional teaching (IPT) during rounds may enhance teamwork and collaborative patient care, but previous studies have shown low rates of IPT during intensive care unit (ICU) rounds. We designed a study to explore contributions by interprofessional providers (IPPs) during ICU rounds and an attending-targeted intervention to promote IPT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a novel observation tool, we collected details regarding contributions made by IPPs during rounds in two ICUs at an academic medical center. A study team member conducted observations for six weeks before and after implementation of an attending-directed intervention. Comparisons were made between pre- and post-intervention data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Before the intervention, six attendings were observed for 59 patient-rounds with 309 contributions recorded, and after, eleven attendings were observed for 94 patient-rounds with 512 contributions recorded. The majority of contributions from IPPs were classified as \"reporting\" (pre/post: 42.7% vs. 43.6%) and \"observing\" (pre/post: 29.1% vs. 29.7%). \"Teaching\" contributions were rare, but increased from 3.9% (12/309) to 4.7% (24/512) of all contributions (p > 0.05). The mean number of contributions per patient did not change after the intervention (5.24 vs. 5.45), and the types of contributions were similar across different attendings. When an IPP spontaneously provided a recommendation (pre: 33, post: 55), the contribution often changed the care plan (pre/post: 97.0% (32/33), 83.6% (46/55)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IPPs predominantly contribute to rounds by reporting data and providing observations. An intervention to improve attending facilitation of IPT did not affect rates of teaching. However, recommendations made by IPPs consistently impacted the patient care plan.</p>","PeriodicalId":72330,"journal":{"name":"ATS scholar","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ATS scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/atsscholar/aapag060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Interprofessional teaching (IPT) during rounds may enhance teamwork and collaborative patient care, but previous studies have shown low rates of IPT during intensive care unit (ICU) rounds. We designed a study to explore contributions by interprofessional providers (IPPs) during ICU rounds and an attending-targeted intervention to promote IPT.
Methods: Using a novel observation tool, we collected details regarding contributions made by IPPs during rounds in two ICUs at an academic medical center. A study team member conducted observations for six weeks before and after implementation of an attending-directed intervention. Comparisons were made between pre- and post-intervention data.
Results: Before the intervention, six attendings were observed for 59 patient-rounds with 309 contributions recorded, and after, eleven attendings were observed for 94 patient-rounds with 512 contributions recorded. The majority of contributions from IPPs were classified as "reporting" (pre/post: 42.7% vs. 43.6%) and "observing" (pre/post: 29.1% vs. 29.7%). "Teaching" contributions were rare, but increased from 3.9% (12/309) to 4.7% (24/512) of all contributions (p > 0.05). The mean number of contributions per patient did not change after the intervention (5.24 vs. 5.45), and the types of contributions were similar across different attendings. When an IPP spontaneously provided a recommendation (pre: 33, post: 55), the contribution often changed the care plan (pre/post: 97.0% (32/33), 83.6% (46/55)).
Conclusions: IPPs predominantly contribute to rounds by reporting data and providing observations. An intervention to improve attending facilitation of IPT did not affect rates of teaching. However, recommendations made by IPPs consistently impacted the patient care plan.
简介:查房期间的跨专业教学(IPT)可以增强团队合作和协作性患者护理,但先前的研究表明,重症监护病房(ICU)查房期间的IPT率很低。我们设计了一项研究,探讨在ICU查房期间跨专业提供者(IPPs)的贡献,以及一种针对护理对象的干预措施来促进IPT。方法:使用一种新颖的观察工具,我们收集了一家学术医疗中心两个icu查房期间ipp的贡献的详细信息。一名研究小组成员在实施主治医生指导的干预前后进行了六周的观察。比较干预前后的数据。结果:干预前,6名护理人员参与59个病人轮,记录贡献309人;干预后,11名护理人员参与94个病人轮,记录贡献512人。来自ipp的大部分贡献被划分为“报告”(前/后:42.7% vs. 43.6%)和“观察”(前/后:29.1% vs. 29.7%)。“教学”贡献很少,但从所有贡献的3.9%(12/309)增加到4.7% (24/512)(p > 0.05)。每位患者的平均贡献数在干预后没有改变(5.24比5.45),不同主治医师的贡献类型相似。当IPP自发提供建议时(前:33,后:55),其贡献通常会改变护理计划(前/后:97.0%(32/33),83.6%(46/55))。结论:ipp主要通过报告数据和提供观察结果来为轮次做出贡献。一项改善IPT的出席便利的干预措施对教学率没有影响。然而,ipp提出的建议始终影响着病人的护理计划。