OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to find out what is discussed during a bedside morning ward round (MWR), whether there are any weak points, and if a standard work process structure can be recommended. METHODS: An intensive care unit (ICU) consultant recorded in a predefined form the topics that were discussed in 225 bedside discussions. RESULTS: The median length of discussions was 5 min. In more than 60% of the discussions, items were considered related to the respiratory, neurological, and cardiovascular systems, as well as to surgical and nursing problems. Specific variables relating to organ system conditions were seldom used (e.g., inspired O2 concentration, 35%; temperature, 28%; ventilation mode, 25%). We recorded two interruptions per MWR; only 17% of them were related to urgent decisions. Information that could not be found in the patient's file usually concerned microbiology findings (10%) or surgical procedures (6%). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the following structure: (1) Addressing the patient by saying "hello"; (2) presentation of information related to case history, acute status (findings and strategy) (including the function of the main organ systems), infection status, and nursing problems; (3) patient-related discussion; and (4) discussion of general treatment rules, triggered by individual patient condition.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to find out what is discussed during a bedside morning ward round (MWR), whether there are any weak points, and if a standard work process structure can be recommended. METHODS: An intensive care unit (ICU) consultant recorded in a predefined form the topics that were discussed in 225 bedside discussions. RESULTS: The median length of discussions was 5 min. In more than 60% of the discussions, items were considered related to the respiratory, neurological, and cardiovascular systems, as well as to surgical and nursing problems. Specific variables relating to organ system conditions were seldom used (e.g., inspired O2 concentration, 35%; temperature, 28%; ventilation mode, 25%). We recorded two interruptions per MWR; only 17% of them were related to urgent decisions. Information that could not be found in the patient's file usually concerned microbiology findings (10%) or surgical procedures (6%). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the following structure: (1) Addressing the patient by saying "hello"; (2) presentation of information related to case history, acute status (findings and strategy) (including the function of the main organ systems), infection status, and nursing problems; (3) patient-related discussion; and (4) discussion of general treatment rules, triggered by individual patient condition.
Authors: Jessalyn K Holodinsky; Marilynne A Hebert; David A Zygun; Romain Rigal; Simon Berthelot; Deborah J Cook; Henry T Stelfox Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 3.240