Enablers and Barriers to Implementing Bedside Reporting: Insights from Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of efforts to improve patient safety, quality of care and patient- and family-centred care, there is a growing interest in moving away from traditional taped nursing reports or reporting at the nursing station to reporting at the bedside. Although a body of knowledge exists regarding what nurses view as benefits and challenges experienced in nurse-to-nurse bedside reporting, less is known about the perceptions of nurses who have experienced this change in reporting practice on their unit. In this context, a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was undertaken to explore nurses' perceptions of a newly implemented nurse-to-nurse bedside reporting practice at one acute care hospital. A total of 43 interviews were conducted on four units with seven nurses from respirology, 10 from obstetrics and gynecology, 10 from nephrology and 16 from general surgery. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. Three themes emerged that captured nurses' perceptions of the implementation of nurse-to-nurse bedside reporting: (a) being supported to change and embrace bedside reporting, (b) maintaining confidentiality and respecting patients' preferences and (c) experiencing challenges with bedside reporting. Our findings provide insight for other organizations in their efforts to change reporting practices. Specifically, there is a need for multi-pronged initiatives including leadership support, educational opportunities and ongoing monitoring and feedback mechanisms. Future research is required to examine how enablers can be leveraged and barriers mitigated or removed to ensure successful implementation and sustainability of nurse-to-nurse bedside reporting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".