Taylor & Francis Group
ijic_a_1980379_sm5313.zip (119.2 kB)

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

Download (119.2 kB)
Version 2 2024-04-11, 09:20
Version 1 2021-10-10, 21:20
posted on 2021-10-10, 21:20 authored by Erin Abu-Rish Blakeney, Frances Chu, Andrew A. White, G. Randy Smith Jr., 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

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.


This work was supported by the NHLBI [1K23HL144910-01A1,5K12HL137940]; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1 TR002319]; Macy Foundation.