Search

Rationale, aims, and objectives: Ward rounds present opportunities for medical officers, nurses, allied health clinicians, and patients to interact and plan patient care. A recent literature review found eight types of rounding processes. Different purposes, varying levels of representation from clinical professions, and understanding of each others' roles revealed a complex activity. A shared understanding of rounding processes facilitates positive teamwork and improves patient care. We examined how clinicians perceive the nature of rounding processes they undertake within their practice, multidisciplinary team attendance at rounds, and the effectiveness of team communication. Methods: We surveyed frontline professionals in two acute care and two rehabilitation wards from a metropolitan teaching hospital. There were 77 participants representing medical officers, nurses, and allied health clinicians. Participants selected the type of rounding processes undertaken on their ward from a list of six defined types, then answered questions about who participated in the rounds and their perceptions of the effectiveness of multidisciplinary communication. Survey findings were analysed using descriptive statistics and comparison. Results: Overall, professionals were inconsistent in the identification of number and types of rounds. Participants nominated processes more consistently within individual clinical disciplines than by clinical speciality. Medical officers identified rounds most consistently, while some nurses were unable to identify any rounding processes undertaken. The perceptions clinicians had of their own attendance at rounds differed from that of their colleagues. Despite variation in perceptions about rounds, professionals reported effective multidisciplinary communication patterns overall. Conclusion: Rounds are a common yet complex activity. Rounds are revealed to be a taken‐for‐granted organizational activity with diversity in function, attendance, and participation, yet rounding processes are perceived and experienced differently between health professions. These differences impact on multidisciplinary attendance at rounds amongst peers. Making and communicating explicit round expectations and roles for clinicians supports coordinated teamwork and care planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Uncertainty is a ubiquitous and dynamic presence throughout healthcare systems and encounters, affecting the quality and safety of care. Although previous research has attempted to categorize varieties of uncertainty, it is not clear if these classifications are applicable across various healthcare settings. Objective: The purpose of this review was to examine the applicability of the issues of uncertainty delineated in an established taxonomy across diverse healthcare domains, professions, and countries and to consider the complexity of these issues. Methods: Drawing on empirical research from three databases, we conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify types of uncertainty experienced by healthcare professionals. A framework synthesis design was employed to review and synthesize the literature across multiple healthcare settings. Results: The search identified 2285 articles, of which 94 met the inclusion criteria. Findings from included studies suggested professional uncertainty in healthcare is complex and pervasive. On the basis of our inability to categorize some studies in the issues of uncertainty outlined in the existing taxonomy, we proposed a revised model of uncertainty for healthcare professionals. Conclusions: The revised model of uncertainty, the model of uncertainty in complex healthcare settings (MUCH‐S), is applicable to various healthcare ecosystems and proposes a reflexive archetype that recognizes different issues of uncertainty while establishing that these are often interrelated in healthcare systems. This review offers healthcare professionals greater levels of understanding of this complex phenomenon and may support more informed and reflective decision‐making, assisting them to better navigate uncertainties experienced in healthcare workplaces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]