Peter M Dodek1, Janet Raboud. 1. Program in Critical Care Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital and University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6Z 1Y6, Canada. pedodek@interchange.ubc.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an explicit approach to responsibilities and reporting during bedside rounds in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN AND SETTING: Before-after comparison in the 15-bed medical-surgical ICU in a tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All patients in the ICU during two 1-month periods: 2 months before and 16 months after the intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Explicit approach to clinical and educational responsibilities and to reporting assessments and plans during bedside rounds. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Surveys of all ICU staff (attending physicians, residents, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and medical students) were conducted during rounds on each patient. After the intervention, more respondents agreed that there was a long-term plan for each patient (74% vs. 53% before), that the long-term plan was clear (76% vs. 54% before), that there was structured teaching around each patient (46% vs. 30% before), that discussions other than structured teaching around each patient were useful (79% vs. 65% before), and that they were satisfied with the process and outcome of rounds (95% vs. 86% before). In contrast, slightly fewer respondents were aware of a problem list for the patients (96% vs. 99% before), and fewer residents and medical students had examined their patients before rounds (76% vs. 88% before). CONCLUSIONS: An explicit approach to bedside rounds in an ICU improves communication and satisfaction of health care providers.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an explicit approach to responsibilities and reporting during bedside rounds in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN AND SETTING: Before-after comparison in the 15-bed medical-surgical ICU in a tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All patients in the ICU during two 1-month periods: 2 months before and 16 months after the intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Explicit approach to clinical and educational responsibilities and to reporting assessments and plans during bedside rounds. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Surveys of all ICU staff (attending physicians, residents, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and medical students) were conducted during rounds on each patient. After the intervention, more respondents agreed that there was a long-term plan for each patient (74% vs. 53% before), that the long-term plan was clear (76% vs. 54% before), that there was structured teaching around each patient (46% vs. 30% before), that discussions other than structured teaching around each patient were useful (79% vs. 65% before), and that they were satisfied with the process and outcome of rounds (95% vs. 86% before). In contrast, slightly fewer respondents were aware of a problem list for the patients (96% vs. 99% before), and fewer residents and medical students had examined their patients before rounds (76% vs. 88% before). CONCLUSIONS: An explicit approach to bedside rounds in an ICU improves communication and satisfaction of health care providers.
Authors: S S Carson; C Stocking; T Podsadecki; J Christenson; A Pohlman; S MacRae; J Jordan; H Humphrey; M Siegler; J Hall Journal: JAMA Date: 1996 Jul 24-31 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A S Multz; D B Chalfin; I M Samson; D R Dantzker; A M Fein; H N Steinberg; M S Niederman; S M Scharf Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: S M Shortell; J E Zimmerman; D M Rousseau; R R Gillies; D P Wagner; E A Draper; W A Knaus; J Duffy Journal: Med Care Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: P J Pronovost; M W Jenckes; T Dorman; E Garrett; M J Breslow; B A Rosenfeld; P A Lipsett; E Bass Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andreas Valentin; Maurizia Capuzzo; Bertrand Guidet; Rui P Moreno; Lorenz Dolanski; Peter Bauer; Philipp G H Metnitz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-07-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Anne C Mosenthal; David E Weissman; J Randall Curtis; Ross M Hays; Dana R Lustbader; Colleen Mulkerin; Kathleen A Puntillo; Daniel E Ray; Rick Bassett; Renee D Boss; Karen J Brasel; Margaret Campbell; Judith E Nelson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 7.598
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 Journal: J Interprof Care Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 2.338
Authors: Judith Gedney Baggs; Sally A Norton; Madeline H Schmitt; Mary T Dombeck; Craig R Sellers; Jill R Quinn Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2007-02-08 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Hilary J Mosher; Daniel T Lose; Russell Leslie; Priyadarshini Pennathur; Peter J Kaboli Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 2.655