MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3198350570 · doi:10.1080/21548331.2021.1977561

The recent evolution of patient care rounds in pediatric teaching hospitals in the United States and Canada

2021· review· en· W3198350570 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Van Blarcom, Andrew Chevalier, Benjamin Drum, Sarah Eyberg, Elizabeth Vukin, Brian Good

Notice bibliographique

RevueHospital Practice · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInnovations in Medical Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRoundingMedicinePatient safetyScheduleNursingComputer scienceHealth carePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: National trends toward empowering and enabling patients and families to take a bigger role in their own medical care and enhanced collaboration between rounding stakeholders have effectuated a new rounding model in the pediatric inpatient setting known as 'Patient- and Family-Centered Rounds/I-PASS,' which has shown to decrease safety events and to improve stakeholders' experience with rounding. Other enhancements to the new model, such as the use of whiteboards, rounding checklists, and facecards, have all been applied to the new model to good effect. Another major enhancement to rounding of late has been the application of a schedule to rounds, which has increased the presence of the nurse and the family during rounds and has improved rounding efficiency without a negative effect on teaching. OBJECTIVE: We provide a review of the literature regarding this new rounding model and its effects in the pediatric inpatient setting, as well as a review of the enhancements that have been applied to the new model, the recognized barriers to the implementation of these rounding alterations and the ways in which those barriers have been overcome. CONCLUSIONS: In the pediatric inpatient setting, the 'Patient and Family-Centered Rounds/IPASS' rounding model, as well as enhancements to this new model such as rounding schedules, whiteboards, checklists and facecards, have had a positive effect on stakeholders' experience with rounding, increased patient safety and improved rounding efficiency. Given these positive effects, these alterations to rounding should be promoted and sustained. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Rounding is when a medical care provider, or a team of providers, visits patients in the hospital in order to determine a plan of care and discuss that care with the patient and the patient's family. In teaching hospitals, this involves staff physicians, medical trainees and advanced practice providers. Rounding has changed in the recent past as evolving pressures have increasingly led these teams of providers to talk and make decisions about patients outside the patient's room, which lessens the patient's ability to contribute to decision-making. This also lessens the ability of the patient's nurse to contribute. The recognition of this problem has led to big changes in rounding in children's teaching hospitals, the biggest of which is called 'family-centered rounding.' This involves performing the entirety of rounds in the patients' rooms, directing the discussion toward them in language that they understand, with the active participation of everyone present, including the patient's nurse. Other changes in rounding, designed to improve patients' experiences and decrease medical errors, have made this new rounding model even better. Structured communication during rounds, communication aids such as whiteboards and checklists, and planned times for rounding on each patient ('scheduled rounding') have all successfully been used to improve patients' care and experience in the hospital. This article aims to inform the reader about family-centered rounds and other recent rounding transformations that have proven to increase patient safety and improve their experience while in the hospital, also noting barriers to these changes and how they have been overcome.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,977
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,016
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,336
Écart entre enseignants0,324 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHospital PracticeMême sujetInnovations in Medical EducationTravaux en français237 207