A scoping review of new implementations of interprofessional bedside rounding models to improve teamwork, care, and outcomes in hospitals.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Interprofessional Care Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-10 DOI:10.1080/13561820.2021.1980379
Erin Abu-Rish Blakeney, Frances Chu, Andrew A White, G Randy Smith, Kyla Woodward, Danielle C Lavallee, Rachel Marie E Salas, Genevieve Beaird, Mayumi A Willgerodt, Deborah Dang, John M Dent, Elizabeth Ibby Tanner, Nicole Summerside, Brenda K Zierler, Kevin D O'Brien, Bryan J Weiner
{"title":"A scoping review of new implementations of interprofessional bedside rounding models to improve teamwork, care, and outcomes in hospitals.","authors":"Erin Abu-Rish Blakeney, Frances Chu, Andrew A White, G Randy Smith, Kyla Woodward, Danielle C Lavallee, Rachel Marie E Salas, Genevieve Beaird, Mayumi A Willgerodt, Deborah Dang, John M Dent, Elizabeth Ibby Tanner, Nicole Summerside, Brenda K Zierler, Kevin D O'Brien, Bryan J Weiner","doi":"10.1080/13561820.2021.1980379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Poor communication within healthcare teams occurs commonly, contributing to inefficiency, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) are a promising model that brings two or more health professions together with patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the breadth and quality of IBR literature to identify and describe gaps and opportunities for future research. We followed an adapted Arksey and O'Malley Framework and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for key IBR words and concepts through June 2020. Seventy-nine articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data abstraction. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Publications in this field have increased since 2014, and the majority of studies reported positive impacts of IBR implementation across an array of team, patient, and care quality/delivery outcomes. Despite the preponderance of positive findings, great heterogeneity, and a reliance on quantitative non-randomized study designs remain in the extant research. A growing number of interventions to improve safety, quality, and care experiences in hospital settings focus on redesigning daily inpatient rounds. Limited information on IBR characteristics and implementation strategies coupled with widespread variation in terminology, study quality, and design create challenges in assessing the effectiveness of models of rounds and optimal implementation strategies. This scoping review highlights the need for additional studies of rounding models, implementation strategies, and outcomes that facilitate comparative research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interprofessional Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8994791/pdf/nihms-1741906.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interprofessional Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2021.1980379","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Poor communication within healthcare teams occurs commonly, contributing to inefficiency, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) are a promising model that brings two or more health professions together with patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the breadth and quality of IBR literature to identify and describe gaps and opportunities for future research. We followed an adapted Arksey and O'Malley Framework and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for key IBR words and concepts through June 2020. Seventy-nine articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data abstraction. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Publications in this field have increased since 2014, and the majority of studies reported positive impacts of IBR implementation across an array of team, patient, and care quality/delivery outcomes. Despite the preponderance of positive findings, great heterogeneity, and a reliance on quantitative non-randomized study designs remain in the extant research. A growing number of interventions to improve safety, quality, and care experiences in hospital settings focus on redesigning daily inpatient rounds. Limited information on IBR characteristics and implementation strategies coupled with widespread variation in terminology, study quality, and design create challenges in assessing the effectiveness of models of rounds and optimal implementation strategies. This scoping review highlights the need for additional studies of rounding models, implementation strategies, and outcomes that facilitate comparative research.

Abstract Image

对新实施的跨专业床边查房模式进行范围审查,以改善医院的团队合作、护理和疗效。
医疗团队内部沟通不畅的情况时有发生,导致效率低下、医疗失误、冲突和其他不良后果。跨专业床旁查房(IBR)是一种很有前景的模式,它将两个或两个以上的医疗专业人员与患者和家属聚集在一起,作为团队日常工作的一部分,分享信息并共同制定日常护理计划。本次系统性范围界定综述的目的是调查 IBR 文献的广度和质量,以确定并描述未来研究的差距和机遇。我们遵循经改编的 Arksey 和 O'Malley 框架以及 PRISMA 范围界定综述指南。截至 2020 年 6 月,我们系统地检索了 PubMed、CINAHL、PsycINFO 和 Embase 中的 IBR 关键词和概念。有 79 篇文章符合纳入标准并进行了数据摘录。研究质量采用混合方法评估工具进行评估。自 2014 年以来,该领域的论文数量有所增加,大多数研究报告了实施 IBR 对团队、患者和护理质量/交付结果的积极影响。尽管正面研究结果占多数,但在现有研究中仍存在很大的异质性和对定量非随机研究设计的依赖。越来越多旨在改善医院安全、质量和护理体验的干预措施都侧重于重新设计住院病人的日常查房。有关 IBR 特征和实施策略的信息有限,加上术语、研究质量和设计方面的广泛差异,给评估查房模式的有效性和最佳实施策略带来了挑战。本范围界定综述强调需要对查房模式、实施策略和结果进行更多研究,以促进比较研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Journal of Interprofessional Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
14.80%
发文量
124
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interprofessional Care disseminates research and new developments in the field of interprofessional education and practice. We welcome contributions containing an explicit interprofessional focus, and involving a range of settings, professions, and fields. Areas of practice covered include primary, community and hospital care, health education and public health, and beyond health and social care into fields such as criminal justice and primary/elementary education. Papers introducing additional interprofessional views, for example, from a community development or environmental design perspective, are welcome. The Journal is disseminated internationally and encourages submissions from around the world.
×
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