Cross-Disciplinary Perceptions of Structured Interprofessional Rounds in Promoting Teamwork Within an Academic Tertiary Care Obstetric Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2005, physician and nursing leaders at Brigham and Women's Hospital initiated structured interprofessional rounds (SIPRs) on the labor and delivery (L&D) suite to improve team communication. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of providers' perceptions of SIPRs and their effectiveness in improving teamwork. We hypothesized that on average, providers would perceive SIPRs as being effective in promoting teamwork, but ratings would differ among professional groups. METHODS: After a factor analysis and internal consistency assessment, a 19-item paper-based questionnaire was used to evaluate providers' perceptions using a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents included L&D nurses, midwives, obstetricians, and anesthesiologists who participate in SIPRs. The primary aim was to evaluate the providers' perceptions of SIPRs and their association with professional roles. The outcome was total response score for each provider, ranging from 19 to 95; perception of SIPRs as being effective in promoting teamwork was defined as having a total response score of >66.5 (mean score, >3.5 per question). A univariable linear regression model was performed, followed by a multivariable analysis adjusting for predictors that modified the outcome; predictors included years of professional practice, years of experience on the L&D suite, number of clinical work hours worked weekly, and principal shift assignment among nurses. The associations between these predictors and providers' perceptions were assessed as a secondary aim. RESULTS: A total of 234 practitioners responded (100% response rate). The mean total response score (SD) for all providers was 73.3 (9.5). After multivariable adjustment, the mean total response scores were significantly higher for obstetric providers than for anesthesia (Δ mean, 6.5, 95% CI, 0.3, 12.7 P = .036) and midwifery (Δ mean, 12.5, 95% CI, 2.0, 23.0, P = .009) providers. Providers scored significantly lower if they worked >60 clinical hours per week compared with ≤20 (Δ mean, -13.7, 95% CI, -25.3, -2.1, P = .009), 21-40 (Δ mean, -8.0, 95% CI, -15.8, -0.09, P = .049), or 41-60 hours (Δ mean, -8.1, 95% CI, -14.5, -1.7, P = .004). Duration of practice in professional role and experience on the L&D suite were not predictive of SIPRs ratings. CONCLUSIONS: On average, providers on the L&D suite perceive SIPRs as being effective in promoting teamwork. Perception ratings were significantly influenced by professional role and number of clinical hours worked weekly, suggesting that these factors should be explored in future research to minimize perception gaps and support a dynamic culture of interprofessional collaboration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".