Leading educationally effective family-centered bedside rounds.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sandhu AK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3886457 | biostudies-other | 2013 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Shared Molecules
Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5
Threshold
0.5
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectiveExperts suggest family engagement in care can improve safety for hospitalized children. Family-centered rounds (FCRs) can offer families the opportunity to participate in error recovery related to children's medications. The objective of this study was to describe family-initiated dialogue about medications and health care team responses to this dialogue during FCR to understand the potential for FCR to foster safe medication use.MethodsFCR were video-recorded daily for 150 hospitalized children. Coders sorted family-initiated medication dialogue into mutually exclusive categories, reflecting place of administration, therapeutic class, topic, and health care team responses. Health care team responses were coded to reflect intent, actions taken by the team, and appropriateness of any changes.ResultsEighty-three (55%) of the 150 families raised 318 medication topics during 347 FCR. Most family-initiated dialogue focused on inpatient medications (65%), with home medications comprising 35%. Anti-infectives (31%), analgesics (14%), and corticosteroids (11%) were the most commonly discussed medications. The most common medication topics raised by families were scheduling (24%) and adverse drug reactions (11%). Although most health care team responses were provision of information (74%), appropriate changes to the child's medications occurred in response to 8% of family-initiated dialogue, with most changes preventing or addressing adverse drug reactions or scheduling issues.ConclusionsMost families initiated dialogue regarding medications during FCRs, including both inpatient and home medications. They raised topics that altered treatment and were important for medication safety, adherence, and satisfaction. Study findings suggest specific medication topics that health care teams can anticipate addressing during FCR.
| S-EPMC4279061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Medical care delivered in hospital-based medicine units requires interprofessional collaborative care (IPCC) to improve quality. However, models such as bedside interprofessional rounds, or encounters that include the team of physician and nurse providers discussing medical care at the patient's bedside, are not well studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence of and time spent in bedside interprofessional rounds on internal medicine teaching services in one academic medical center. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational descriptive study of internal medicine faculty serving as inpatient medicine attending physicians. Participants completed a daily electronic survey following team rounding sessions to assess rounding characteristics (November 2012-June 2013); variables such as resident level-of-training, attending physician years' of experience, house staff call day and clinic schedule were obtained from administrative data. Descriptive, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariable logistic regression statistics were used to evaluate the study objectives. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were: (1) incidence of bedside interprofessional rounds, (2) time spent with patients during bedside interprofessional rounding encounters, and, (3) factors associated with increased occurrence of and time spent with patients during bedside interprofessional rounds. Covariates included resident level-of-training, attending physician years' of experience, census size, and call day. KEY RESULTS: Of 549 rounding sessions, 412 surveys were collected (75 % response) from 25 attending physicians. Bedside interprofessional rounds occurred with 64 % of patients (median 8.0 min/encounter), differing by unit (intermediate care 81 %, general medicine 63 %, non-medicine 57 %, p < 0.001). Factors independently associated with increased occurrence of bedside interprofessional rounds were senior resident (OR 2.67, CI 1.75-4.06, PGY-3/PGY-4 vs. PGY-2), weekdays (OR 1.74, CI 1.13-2.69), team census size ≤ 11 (OR 2.36, CI 1.37-4.06), and attending physicians with ≤ 4 years' experience (OR 2.15, CI 1.31-3.55). Factors independently associated with increased time spent during encounters were attending physicians with ≤ 4 years (OR 2.38, CI 1.44-3.95), 5-15 years of experience (OR 1.82, CI 1.10-3.02), and weekdays (OR 1.71, CI 1.10-2.65). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight factors associated with increasing or decreasing occurrence and time spent in bedside interprofessional collaborative care delivery. Systematic changes to census size caps, resident scheduling, and attending physician education and staffing may be required to increase the occurrence of interprofessional collaborative care.
| S-EPMC4061365 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveDespite widespread adoption of family-centered rounds, few have investigated differences in the experience of family-centered rounds by family race and ethnicity. The purpose of this study was to explore racial and ethnic differences in caregiver perception of inclusion and empowerment during family-centered rounds.MethodsWe identified eligible caregivers of children admitted to the general pediatrics team through the electronic health record. Surveys were completed by 99 caregivers (47 non-Latinx White and 52 Black, Latinx, or other caregivers of color). To compare agreement with statements of inclusivity and empowerment, we used the Wilcoxon rank sum test in unadjusted analyses and linear regression for the adjusted analyses.ResultsMost (91%) caregivers were satisfied or extremely satisfied with family-centered rounds. We found no differences by race or ethnicity in statements of satisfaction or understanding family-centered rounds content. However, in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, we found that White caregivers more strongly agreed with the statements "I felt comfortable participating in rounds," "I had adequate time to ask questions during rounds," and "I felt a valued member of the team during rounds" compared with Black, Latinx, and other caregivers of color.ConclusionsCongruent with studies of communication in other settings, caregivers of color may experience barriers to inclusion in family-centered rounds, such as medical team bias, less empathic communication, and shorter encounters. Future studies are needed to better understand family-centered rounds disparities and develop interventions that promote inclusive rounds.
| S-EPMC9881425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVariation exists in family-centered rounds (FCR).ObjectiveWe sought to understand patient/family and clinician FCR beliefs/attitudes and practices to support implementation efforts.Designs, settings and participantsPatients/families and clinicians at 21 geographically diverse US community/academic pediatric teaching hospitals participated in a prospective cohort dissemination and implementation study.InterventionWe inquired about rounding beliefs/attitudes, practices, and demographics using a 26-question survey coproduced with family/nurse/attending-physician collaborators, informed by prior research and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Main outcome and measuresOut of 2578 individuals, 1647 (64%) responded to the survey; of these, 1313 respondents participated in FCR and were included in analyses (616 patients/families, 243 nurses, 285 resident physicians, and 169 attending physicians). Beliefs/attitudes regarding the importance of FCR elements varied by role, with resident physicians rating the importance of several FCR elements lower than others. For example, on adjusted multivariable analysis, attending physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2-7.8) and nurses (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.4) were much more likely than resident physicians to report family participation on rounds as very/extremely important. Clinician support for key FCR elements was higher than self-reported practice (e.g., 88% believed family participation was important on rounds; 68% reported it often/always occurred). In practice, key elements of FCR were reported to often/always occur only 23%-70% of the time.ResultSupport for nurse and family participation in FCR is high among clinicians but varies by role. Physicians, particularly resident physicians, endorse several FCR elements as less important than nurses and patients/families. The gap between attitudes and practice and between clinician types suggests that attitudinal, structural, and cultural barriers impede FCR.
| S-EPMC10087029 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesFamily-centered rounds (FCRs) have become standard of care, despite the limited evaluation of FCRs' benefits or interventions to support high-quality FCR delivery. This work examines the impact of the FCR checklist intervention, a checklist and associated provider training, on performance of FCR elements, family engagement, and patient safety.MethodsThis cluster randomized trial involved 298 families. Two hospital services were randomized to use the checklist; 2 others delivered usual care. We evaluated the performance of 8 FCR checklist elements and family engagement from 673 pre- and postintervention FCR videos and assessed the safety climate with the Children's Hospital Safety Climate Questionnaire. Random effects regression models were used to assess intervention impact.ResultsThe intervention significantly increased the number of FCR checklist elements performed (β = 1.2, P < .001). Intervention rounds were significantly more likely to include asking the family (odds ratio [OR] = 2.43, P < .05) or health care team (OR = 4.28, P = .002) for questions and reading back orders (OR = 12.43, P < .001). Intervention families' engagement and reports of safety climate were no different from usual care. However, performance of specific checklist elements was associated with changes in these outcomes. For example, order read-back was associated with significantly more family engagement. Asking families for questions was associated with significantly better ratings of staff's communication openness and safety of handoffs and transitions.ConclusionsThe performance of FCR checklist elements was enhanced by checklist implementation and associated with changes in family engagement and more positive perceptions of safety climate. Implementing the checklist improves delivery of FCRs, impacting quality and safety of care.
| S-EPMC5404725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Family-centered rounding (FCR) allows the medical team to partner with patients in medical decision-making, improving communication, and enhancing safety. However, FCR may compromise aspects of the resident education experience. In a survey of pediatric residents at our children's hospital, only 20% felt FCR provided the best educational experience. We designed this project to increase the percentage of residents with a positive perception of the educational experience on FCR from 20% to 80% in 6 months.MethodsThis project utilized The Model for Improvement and sequential plan-do-study-act cycles. A needs assessment identified educational activities negatively impacted by FCR. We then designed a hybrid FCR process with formal presentations outside patient rooms followed by traditional bedside FCR. Our primary measure was the percentage of residents positively perceiving the FCR educational experience. Our balancing measures included rounding duration and family satisfaction and comprehension.ResultsResidents who perceive FCR to be the best educational experience improved from a baseline of 21% to 76%, with a calculated response rate of 79%. Patients receiving FCR remained above 80%. All surveyed families understood their care plans and remained satisfied with the information provided, although 21% were concerned about the number of people present on rounds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Forty-three percent of hospitalist rounds exceeded the allotted time.ConclusionsThe hybridization of FCR to include formal presentations may improve the resident learning experience while preserving family satisfaction and comprehension.
| S-EPMC9622666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPatients speaking a primary language other than English face barriers to equitable care, particularly patient-provider communications. There is no gold standard for providing inpatient medical interpretation on family-centered rounds (FCR). We aimed to implement simultaneous, in-person interpretation of FCR for Spanish-speaking families and hypothesized improved satisfaction in care.MethodsIn-person, Spanish Equipment-Assisted Simultaneous Medical Interpretation (EASMI) was implemented in March 2018 on FCR. Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (Child HCAHPS) experience scores on communication domains were analyzed for Spanish and English-speaking families pre- (n = 118) and postimplementation (n = 552). Postimplementation, we conducted medical team surveys (n = 104) and semistructured interviews with Spanish-speaking families (n = 25) to determine satisfaction with interpretation modalities (phone, video, and EASMI).ResultsSpanish-speaking families exhibited statistically significant improvements in Child HCAHPS top box scores compared to English-speaking families in multiple communication and informed care-related domains. For example, "How often did your child's doctors explain things to you in a way that was easy to understand?" top box scores improved from 58% to 95% for Spanish-speaking families, compared to 85% to 83% for English speakers, with the differential effect of the intervention showing statistical significance (P = .001). Medical team surveys demonstrated high satisfaction with EASMI. Qualitative themes from interviews and open-ended survey responses emphasized multiple care benefits with EASMI, including a perceived reduction of communication errors and increased family participation.ConclusionsEASMI was associated with significant improvements in Child HCAHPS scores in communication domains and increased medical team and family members' satisfaction with interpretation. EASMI presents a novel method for equitable FCR for Spanish-speaking families.
| S-EPMC10281615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate racial and ethnic differences in communication quality during family centered rounds.MethodsWe conducted an observational study of family-centered rounds on hospital day 1. All enrolled caregivers completed a survey following rounds and a subset consented to audio record their encounter with the medical team. We applied a priori defined codes to transcriptions of the audio-recorded encounters to assess objective communication quality, including medical team behaviors, caregiver participatory behaviors, and global communication scores. The surveys were designed to measure subjective communication quality. Incident Rate Ratios (IRR) were calculated with regression models to compare the relative mean number of behaviors per encounter time minute by race and ethnicity.ResultsOverall, 202 of 341 eligible caregivers completed the survey, and 59 had accompanying audio- recorded rounds. We found racial and ethnic differences in participatory behaviors: English-speaking Latinx (IRR 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.8) Black (IRR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4-0.8), and Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers (IRR 0.3; 95% CI 0.2-0.5) participated less than white caregivers. Coder-rated global ratings of medical team respect and partnership were lower for Black and Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers than white caregivers (respect 3.1 and 2.9 vs 3.6, P values .03 and .04, respectively: partnership 2.4 and 2.3 vs 3.1, P values .03 and .04 respectively). In surveys, Spanish-speaking caregivers reported lower subjective communication quality in several domains.ConclusionsIn this study, Black and Latinx caregivers were treated with less partnership and respect than white caregivers.
| S-EPMC9724176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: Family-centered rounds (FCR) can improve communication and patient/family engagement. While use of informational resources (e.g., tablets, computers on wheels, paper notes) can guide FCR, there are limited data concerning parental perspectives on how use of these resources during FCR, or other factors, affect their engagement. Our objectives were to examine parental perspectives on factors that affect their participation during FCR and preferences for informational resources used. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study with English-speaking parents (n = 200), of pediatric inpatients at an academic medical center, present during FCR. We surveyed parents to ascertain factors they believed affect their engagement during FCR. We asked about their preferences regarding informational resources used by the medical team. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Parents described their reasoning behind resource preferences, and we categorized these responses. Results: Parents reported that participation was affected by: clarity of the medical team's explanations (78.5%), understanding the information (75.5%), the child's health (74.5%), and being asked for their input (71%). Few (25%) parents believed the informational resource affects participation. Tablets were the preferred resource (24%) due to portability and ease of use, although 56% of parents had no preference. Conclusions: Parents of hospitalized children placed importance on delivery of clear information and an "invitation" to participate during FCR. The resource used by the team was less important, although tablets were most preferred. Next steps are to examine factors associated with objective measures of participation and further study FCR in families with limited English proficiency.
| S-EPMC7338563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesFamily-centered rounds (FCR) can lead to improved communication, satisfaction, and care delivery. However, FCR are variable in practice. Our primary goal was to implement and sustain consistent communication practices during FCR (a subset of all rounds in which parents were present) for patients on a pediatric hospital medicine service. We aimed to achieve 80% reliability for the following FCR practices: (1) discussion of risk factors and prevention strategies for hospital-acquired conditions (HACs), (2) discussion of discharge planning, and (3) asking families for questions.MethodsResearch assistants observed FCR on a pediatric acute care unit at an academic medical center and recorded if the rounding team discussed HAC risk factors, discussed discharge, or asked families for questions. Using the Model for Improvement, we performed multiple plan-do-study-act cycles to test and implement interventions, including (1) standardized note templates, (2) education via peer-led group discussions and team e-mails, and (3) routine provider feedback about performance. Data were analyzed by using statistical process control charts.ResultsFrom October 2017 to April 2019, reliability increased to >80% and sustained for (1) discussion of HAC risk factors (increased from 11% to 89%), (2) discussion of discharge planning (from 60% to 92%), and (3) asking families for questions (from 61% to 87%). Peer-led physician education, reminder e-mails, and physician engagement were the most impactful interventions corresponding to centerline shifts.ConclusionsUsing multiple interventions, we achieved and sustained improvements in key communication-related elements of FCR. Future work will focus on determining if improved practices impact clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC9647567 | biostudies-literature