| Autor: |
Blakeney EA; Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, United States., Chu F; School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, United States., White AA; Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, United States., Smith GR Jr; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, United States., Woodward K; School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, United States., Lavallee DC; British Columbia Academic Health Science Network, Vancouver Canada., Salas RME; Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, United States., Beaird G; Department of Family and Community Health, School of Nursing, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, United States., Willgerodt MA; Department of Family and Child Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, United States., Dang D; Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, United States., Dent JM; University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, United States., Tanner EI; Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, United States., Summerside N; School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, United States., Zierler BK; Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, United States., O'Brien KD; University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, United States., Weiner BJ; Departments of Global Health and Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, United States. |
| Abstrakt: |
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. |
