Physician experiences of patient-centered and team- based ward rounding – an interview based case-study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rounding has long traditions within hospital-based healthcare, as a way to organize the ward-based part of the care and cure process. Despite an increased emphasis on patient participation, there has been limited research exploring physician experiences of actually applying these principles to the ward round. Aim: To explore physician experiences after changing to a patient-centered and team-based ward round, in an internal medicine department at a Swedish mid-size hospital. Methods: Qualitative exploratory case-study. Semi-structured interviews with 13 physicians (six consultants, three residents, four interns) have been carried out. All interviews have been transcribed and analyzed by qualitative method. Results: The traditional relationship of superiority and subordination, embodied by the patient lying down in bed and the physician standing over the bed, was one essential change in the new ward round. Physicians experienced that less hierarchical relationships with patients, combined with working in a multi-professional team, contributed to better-informed clinical decisions, fewer follow-up questions from patients, and increased professional fulfilment. However, physicians also experienced that their autonomy was being reduced, and there was uneasiness about exposing potential knowledge gaps in front of others. Conclusions: This qualitative study of physician experiences finds that patient-centered and team-based ward rounds is a fertile development journey forward. Also important to notice are the seemingly new and paradoxical findings that despite the introduction of the “right” ward round structure, negative experiences emerged as unwanted side effects to the positive experiences reported. It could be beneficial for leaders in healthcare (both managers and physicians) to consider these results to facilitate future ward round initiatives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".