Improving teamwork and patient outcomes with daily structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds: a multi method evaluation

Robyn Clay-Williams, Jennifer Plumb, Georgina Luscombe, Catherine Hawke, Hazel Dalton, Gabriel Shannon, Julie Johnson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Previous research has shown that interdisciplinary ward rounds have the potential to improve team functioning and patient outcomes.
Design: A convergent parallel multimethod approach to evaluate a hospital interdisciplinary ward round intervention and ward restructure.
Setting: An acute medical unit in a large tertiary care hospital in regional Australia.
Participants: Thirty-two clinicians and inpatients aged 15 years and above, with acute episode of care, discharged during the year prior and the year of the
intervention.
Intervention: A daily structured interdisciplinary bedside round combined with a ward restructure.
Measurements: Qualitative measures included contextual factors and measures of change and experiences of clinicians. Quantitative measures included length of stay (LOS), monthly “calls for clinical review,’” and cost of care delivery.
Results: Clinicians reported improved teamwork, communication, and understanding between and within the clinical professions, and between clinicians and patients, after the intervention implementation. There was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control wards in the change in LOS over time (Wald χ2=1.05; degrees of freedom [df]=1; P=.31), but a statistically significant interaction for cost of stay, with a drop in cost over time, was observed in the intervention group, and an increase was observed in the control wards (Wald χ2=6.34; df=1; P=.012). The medical wards and control wards differed significantly in how the number of monthly “calls for clinical review” changed from prestructured interdisciplinary bedside round (SIBR) to
during SIBR (F (1,44) = 12.18; P=.001).
Conclusions: Multimethod evaluations are necessary to provide insight into the contextual factors that contribute to a successful intervention and improved
clinical outcomes.
LanguageEnglish
Pages311-317
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Hospital Medicine
Volume13
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2018

Fingerprint

Costs and Cost Analysis
Length of Stay
Episode of Care
Tertiary Healthcare
Tertiary Care Centers
Inpatients
Communication
Research

Cite this

Clay-Williams, Robyn ; Plumb, Jennifer ; Luscombe, Georgina ; Hawke, Catherine ; Dalton, Hazel ; Shannon, Gabriel ; Johnson, Julie. / Improving teamwork and patient outcomes with daily structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds : a multi method evaluation. In: Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 13, No. 5. pp. 311-317.
@article{88004e7d582749beb8e0d3892c52b3e2,
title = "Improving teamwork and patient outcomes with daily structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds: a multi method evaluation",
abstract = "Background: Previous research has shown that interdisciplinary ward rounds have the potential to improve team functioning and patient outcomes.Design: A convergent parallel multimethod approach to evaluate a hospital interdisciplinary ward round intervention and ward restructure.Setting: An acute medical unit in a large tertiary care hospital in regional Australia.Participants: Thirty-two clinicians and inpatients aged 15 years and above, with acute episode of care, discharged during the year prior and the year of theintervention.Intervention: A daily structured interdisciplinary bedside round combined with a ward restructure.Measurements: Qualitative measures included contextual factors and measures of change and experiences of clinicians. Quantitative measures included length of stay (LOS), monthly “calls for clinical review,’” and cost of care delivery.Results: Clinicians reported improved teamwork, communication, and understanding between and within the clinical professions, and between clinicians and patients, after the intervention implementation. There was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control wards in the change in LOS over time (Wald χ2=1.05; degrees of freedom [df]=1; P=.31), but a statistically significant interaction for cost of stay, with a drop in cost over time, was observed in the intervention group, and an increase was observed in the control wards (Wald χ2=6.34; df=1; P=.012). The medical wards and control wards differed significantly in how the number of monthly “calls for clinical review” changed from prestructured interdisciplinary bedside round (SIBR) toduring SIBR (F (1,44) = 12.18; P=.001).Conclusions: Multimethod evaluations are necessary to provide insight into the contextual factors that contribute to a successful intervention and improvedclinical outcomes.",
author = "Robyn Clay-Williams and Jennifer Plumb and Georgina Luscombe and Catherine Hawke and Hazel Dalton and Gabriel Shannon and Julie Johnson",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
doi = "10.12788/jhm.2850",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "311--317",
journal = "Journal of Hospital Medicine",
issn = "1553-5592",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",
number = "5",

}

Improving teamwork and patient outcomes with daily structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds : a multi method evaluation. / Clay-Williams, Robyn; Plumb, Jennifer; Luscombe, Georgina; Hawke, Catherine; Dalton, Hazel ; Shannon, Gabriel; Johnson, Julie.

In: Journal of Hospital Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 5, 05.2018, p. 311-317.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving teamwork and patient outcomes with daily structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds

T2 - Journal of Hospital Medicine

AU - Clay-Williams, Robyn

AU - Plumb, Jennifer

AU - Luscombe, Georgina

AU - Hawke, Catherine

AU - Dalton, Hazel

AU - Shannon, Gabriel

AU - Johnson, Julie

PY - 2018/5

Y1 - 2018/5

N2 - Background: Previous research has shown that interdisciplinary ward rounds have the potential to improve team functioning and patient outcomes.Design: A convergent parallel multimethod approach to evaluate a hospital interdisciplinary ward round intervention and ward restructure.Setting: An acute medical unit in a large tertiary care hospital in regional Australia.Participants: Thirty-two clinicians and inpatients aged 15 years and above, with acute episode of care, discharged during the year prior and the year of theintervention.Intervention: A daily structured interdisciplinary bedside round combined with a ward restructure.Measurements: Qualitative measures included contextual factors and measures of change and experiences of clinicians. Quantitative measures included length of stay (LOS), monthly “calls for clinical review,’” and cost of care delivery.Results: Clinicians reported improved teamwork, communication, and understanding between and within the clinical professions, and between clinicians and patients, after the intervention implementation. There was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control wards in the change in LOS over time (Wald χ2=1.05; degrees of freedom [df]=1; P=.31), but a statistically significant interaction for cost of stay, with a drop in cost over time, was observed in the intervention group, and an increase was observed in the control wards (Wald χ2=6.34; df=1; P=.012). The medical wards and control wards differed significantly in how the number of monthly “calls for clinical review” changed from prestructured interdisciplinary bedside round (SIBR) toduring SIBR (F (1,44) = 12.18; P=.001).Conclusions: Multimethod evaluations are necessary to provide insight into the contextual factors that contribute to a successful intervention and improvedclinical outcomes.

AB - Background: Previous research has shown that interdisciplinary ward rounds have the potential to improve team functioning and patient outcomes.Design: A convergent parallel multimethod approach to evaluate a hospital interdisciplinary ward round intervention and ward restructure.Setting: An acute medical unit in a large tertiary care hospital in regional Australia.Participants: Thirty-two clinicians and inpatients aged 15 years and above, with acute episode of care, discharged during the year prior and the year of theintervention.Intervention: A daily structured interdisciplinary bedside round combined with a ward restructure.Measurements: Qualitative measures included contextual factors and measures of change and experiences of clinicians. Quantitative measures included length of stay (LOS), monthly “calls for clinical review,’” and cost of care delivery.Results: Clinicians reported improved teamwork, communication, and understanding between and within the clinical professions, and between clinicians and patients, after the intervention implementation. There was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control wards in the change in LOS over time (Wald χ2=1.05; degrees of freedom [df]=1; P=.31), but a statistically significant interaction for cost of stay, with a drop in cost over time, was observed in the intervention group, and an increase was observed in the control wards (Wald χ2=6.34; df=1; P=.012). The medical wards and control wards differed significantly in how the number of monthly “calls for clinical review” changed from prestructured interdisciplinary bedside round (SIBR) toduring SIBR (F (1,44) = 12.18; P=.001).Conclusions: Multimethod evaluations are necessary to provide insight into the contextual factors that contribute to a successful intervention and improvedclinical outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054574332&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.12788/jhm.2850

DO - 10.12788/jhm.2850

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 311

EP - 317

JO - Journal of Hospital Medicine

JF - Journal of Hospital Medicine

SN - 1553-5592

IS - 5

ER -