Effect of patient-centred bedside rounds on hospitalised patients' decision control, activation and satisfaction with care

• Published in: BMJ quality & safety Vol. 25; no. 12; p. 921
• Main Authors: O'Leary, Kevin J, Killarney, Audrey, Hansen, Luke O, Jones, Sasha, Malladi, Megan, Marks, Kelly, M Shah, Hiren
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01-12-2016
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Attitude of Health Personnel; Decision Making; Female; Hospitalization; Hospitals, Urban - organization & administration; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Care Team - organization & administration; Patient Satisfaction; Patient-Centered Care - organization & administration; Teaching Rounds - organization & administration; Teams; Patient satisfaction; Patient-centred care; Hospital medicine
• ISSN: 2044-5423
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004561

Though interprofessional bedside rounds have been promoted to enhance patient-centred care for hospitalised patients, few studies have been conducted in adult hospital settings and evidence of impact is lacking.
To evaluate the effect of patient-centred bedside rounds (PCBRs) on measures of patient-centred care.
Cluster randomised controlled trial involving four similar non-teaching hospitalist service units in a large urban hospital.
Hospitalised general medical patients.
We assembled working groups on two intervention units, consisting of professionals and patient/family members, to determine the optimal timing, duration and format for PCBR. Nurses and hospitalists rounded together in PCBR using a communication tool to provide a framework for discussion and unit leaders joined PCBR to provide coaching during initial weeks of implementation.
Using patient interviews, we assessed preferred and experienced roles in medical decision-making using the Control Preferences Scale, activation using the Short Form of the Patient Activation Measure, and satisfaction. We also compared postdischarge patient satisfaction survey items related to teamwork, involvement in decisions and overall care. We assessed nurses', physicians' and advanced practice providers' (APP) perceptions of PCBR using a survey developed for this study.
Overall, 650 patients were approached for structured interview during hospitalisation: 284 were excluded because of disorientation, 54 were excluded because of non-English language, 72 declined to participate and 4 withdrew from the study after enrolment. Interview data were available for 236 (122 control and 114 intervention unit) patients, and postdischarge satisfaction survey data were available for 493 (274 control and 219 intervention unit) patients. We found no significant differences in patients' perceptions of shared decision-making, activation or satisfaction with care. Results were similar in analyses based on whether PCBR had been performed (ie, per protocol). We also found no difference in postdischarge patient satisfaction items. Results were similar in multivariate analyses controlling for patient characteristics and clustering of patients within study units. A majority of nurses (78.6%), but only about half of hospitalist physicians and APPs felt that PCBR improved communication with patients (47.4%). A minority of nurses (46.4%) and physicians and APPs (36.8%) agreed that PCBR had improved the efficiency of their workday.
PCBR had no impact on patients' perceptions of shared decision-making, activation or satisfaction with care. Additional research is needed to identify optimal approaches that can be reliably implemented in hospital settings to improve patient-centred care.