How Do Interprofessional Healthcare Teams Perceive the Benefits and Challenges of Interdisciplinary Ward Rounds.

benefits challenges communication coordination patient focused care time factors

Journal

Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare
ISSN: 1178-2390
Titre abrégé: J Multidiscip Healthc
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101512691

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 07 08 2019
accepted: 30 10 2019
entrez: 19 12 2019
pubmed: 19 12 2019
medline: 19 12 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Interdisciplinary bedside ward rounds have the capacity to facilitate coordinated interprofessional patient care. To be an effective means of care coordination, clinicians need an explicit understanding of how these rounds contribute to patient care. By identifying benefits and challenges to the effective use of interdisciplinary ward rounds, clinicians create an opportunity to improve interprofessional teamwork, care planning, and coordination of patient care. A survey was conducted with frontline professionals in two acute care and two rehabilitation wards from a metropolitan teaching hospital. There were 77 participants, representing medical officers, nurses, and allied health clinicians. Questions examined the perceived benefits and challenges of conducting interdisciplinary ward rounds in their units. Survey findings were coded for meaning and then grouped into themes. Benefits revealed a desired care delivery model challenged by the complexities of organizational and professional cultures. The themes of "being on the same page", "focusing on patients", and "holistic care planning" underpinned the ideas of collaboration and improved patient-centred care, that is, benefits to patients. Challenges centred on health professionals' time constraints and the coordination of teams to enable participation in rounds. The themes were more distinct, logistical barriers of "time", "workforce", and "care planning". Overall, clinicians recognise there are greater benefits to IBRs and have a willingness to participate. However, careful consideration is required to introduce and continually achieve the best from IBR as they require changes in organizational context and culture.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31849478
doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S226330
pii: 226330
pmc: PMC6912018
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1023-1032

Informations de copyright

© 2019 Walton et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Références

Soc Sci Med. 2010 Sep;71(5):898-909
pubmed: 20609507
South Med J. 2017 Aug;110(8):531-537
pubmed: 28771651
J Hosp Med. 2016 Jul;11(7):524-5
pubmed: 27149426
J Interprof Care. 2016;30(1):15-28
pubmed: 26709985
Clin Rehabil. 2010 Aug;24(8):745-55
pubmed: 20530646
J Hosp Med. 2016 Jul;11(7):513-23
pubmed: 26991337
J Hosp Med. 2015 Jan;10(1):36-40
pubmed: 25399928
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2016 May 9;29(4):364-79
pubmed: 27142947
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Dec;25(12):921-928
pubmed: 26628552
J Hosp Med. 2014 Oct;9(10):646-51
pubmed: 25130404
J Hosp Med. 2018 May;13(5):311-317
pubmed: 29698537
Aust Health Rev. 2014 Jun;38(3):259-64
pubmed: 24814229
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Feb;150:31-9
pubmed: 26730879
Postgrad Med J. 2014 Mar;90(1061):149-54
pubmed: 24398594
Hosp Pract (1995). 2015;43(3):186-90
pubmed: 25936415
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Aug 5;:null
pubmed: 31385440

Auteurs

Victoria Walton (V)

Australian Institute of Health Service Management, University of Tasmania, Sydney, NSW 2015, Australia.

Anne Hogden (A)

Australian Institute of Health Service Management, University of Tasmania, Sydney, NSW 2015, Australia.

Janet C Long (JC)

Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Julie K Johnson (JK)

Centre for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

David Greenfield (D)

Australian Institute of Health Service Management, University of Tasmania, Sydney, NSW 2015, Australia.

Classifications MeSH