Randomized Study of Bedside vs Hallway Rounding: Neurology Rounding Study

Over the last century, attending rounds have shifted away from the bedside. Despite evidence for greater patient satisfaction rates and improved nursing perception of teamwork with bedside presentations, residents and attending physicians are apprehensive of the bedside approach. There is lack of data to guide rounding practices within neurology, and therefore optimal rounding methods remain unclear. The objective of this study was to compare bedside rounding with hallway rounding on an academic neurology inpatient service and assess efficiency, trainee education, and satisfaction among patients and staff.We conducted a single-center prospective randomized study of bedside versus hallway rounding on new inpatient neurology admissions over one-week blocks. The bedside team presented patients at the bedside, while the hallway team presented patients outside of the patient’s room. We evaluated the two approaches with time-motion analysis, which investigated the rounding style’s effect on composition and timing of rounds (primary outcome), and surveys of patients, nurses, residents, and attending physicians on both teams (secondary outcomes).The mean rounding time per newly admitted patient in the bedside group (n = 38 patients) and hallway group (n = 41 patients) was 23 minutes and 23.2 minutes, respectively (p = 0.93). The bedside group spent on average 56.4% of patient rounding time in the patient’s room, while the hallway group spent 39.5% of rounding time in the patient’s room (p = 0.036). Residents perceived hallway rounding to be more efficient and associated it with a superior educational experience and more effective data review. Nurses had improved perception of their participation in bedside rounds. Though patients’ views of bedside and hallway rounds were similar, patients who had experienced bedside rounds preferred it.In conclusion, bedside rounding was perceived less favorably by most residents but was as efficient as hallway rounding. Although bedside rounding limited the use of technology for data review, it promoted nursing participation and resulted in more time spent with the patient.

Seven ways to get a grip on facilitating bedside team rounding

Although classically considered a cornerstone of inpatient care, rounding at patients’ bedsides is increasingly being replaced by rounding in workrooms. Workroom rounds may provide a sense of efficiency and comfort, however bedside rounds have multiple benefits for patients, trainees and staff physicians. Alongside its benefits, there are human and institutional challenges when incorporating bedside rounding. This article aims to draw on our own experience of implementing bedside rounding at Kingston Health Sciences Centre, to guide staff physicians and institutions on how to implement bedside rounding effectively while overcoming its challenges. The following seven tips provide a framework to avoid pitfalls when implementing bedside team rounding on inpatient services.

Impact of structured interdisciplinary bedside rounding on patient outcomes at a large academic health centre

BackgroundEffective communication between healthcare providers and patients and their family members is an integral part of daily care and discharge planning for hospitalised patients. Several studies suggest that team-based care is associated with improved length of stay (LOS), but the data on readmissions are conflicting. Our study evaluated the impact of structured interdisciplinary bedside rounding (SIBR) on outcomes related to readmissions and LOS.MethodsThe SIBR team consisted of a physician and/or advanced practice provider, bedside nurse, pharmacist, social worker and bridge nurse navigator. Outcomes were compared in patients admitted to a hospital medicine unit using SIBR (n=1451) and a similar control unit (n=770) during the period of October 2016 to September 2017. Multivariable negative binomial regression analysis was used to compare LOS and logistic regression analysis was used to calculate 30-day and 7-day readmission in patients admitted to SIBR and control units, adjusting for covariates.ResultsPatients admitted to SIBR and control units were generally similar (p≥0.05) with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics. Unadjusted readmission rates in SIBR patients were lower than in control patients at both 30 days (16.6% vs 20.3%, p=0.03) and 7 days (6.3% vs 9.0%, p=0.02) after discharge, while LOS was similar. After adjusting for covariates, SIBR was not significantly related to the odds of 30-day readmission (OR 0.81, p=0.07) but was lower for 7-day readmission (OR 0.70, p=0.03); LOS was similar in both groups (p=0.58).ConclusionSIBR did not reduce LOS and 30-day readmissions but had a significant impact on 7-day readmissions.