Search

Objectives. To develop and pilot a mnemonic to increase the willingness and ability of bedside nurses to contribute to patient reviews in the daily interprofessional ward round. Research methodology/design. Appreciative inquiry quality improvement study, using ethnographic observations and appreciative inquiry discussions, augmented by quantitative data collection of basic facts. Setting. Large (44 beds) critical care unit in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures. Interprofessional development and acceptance of mnemonic; successful preparation for pilot; use and usability of mnemonic; improvements in bedside nurses’ contributions to ward round discussions (frequency and focus). Result/findings. Interprofessional development of a usable and useful mnemonic was successful, pilot implementation showed promising levels of take up and acceptance. Compared to before the quality improvement project bedside nurses were more willing and able to participate in ward round discussions, did so more often, and used the mnemonic script with insight and flexibility. Conclusions. The implementation of a mnemonic supported bedside nurses’ contributions to the ward round. This could provide a framework for introducing similar programmes to other intensive care units. Appreciative inquiry methodology could be replicated in other settings to aid the improvement of interprofessional ward rounds, or to address other quality improvement priorities. Implications for clinical practice. A mnemonic can provide a structure which supports bedside nurses’ contributions in ways that make good use of bedside nurses’ professional expertise and most up to date knowledge of patients’ clinical state. Furthermore, a well-designed mnemonic can be used flexibly and provides an outline script that supports less experienced and less confident nurses to make well-focused and well received contributions to rapid interprofessional discussions. In turn, this can increase these nurses’ confidence and capabil

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Ward rounds (WRs) are complex social processes. Done well, WR discussions and decisions contribute to timely, safe, effective pro-gression of care. However, literature highlights medical dominance; marginalisation or absence of other perspectives, safety risks and suboptimal resource use. This study examined leadership behaviours and what supported good interprofessional WRs, defined as enabling interprofessional collaboration and decision making which progresses patient care in a safe and timely manner. Deepening appreciation of this art should support learning and improvements. Method: Mixed‐method appreciative inquiry (AI) into how WRs go well and could go well more often. Context: daily interprofessional consultant‐led WRs in a large adult critical care unit. Data: ethnographic and structured observations (73 h, 348 patient reviews); AI conversations and interviews (71 participants). Inductive iterative analysis shaped by Activity Theory. Participants: 256 qualified healthcare professionals working in the unit. Results: Leadership of good WRs supported (and minimized contradictions to): making good use of expertise and time, and effective communication. These three key activities required careful and skilled orchestration of contributions to each patient review, which was achieved through four distinct phases (a broadly pre-dictable script), ensuring opportunity to contribute while maintaining focus and a productive pace. This expertise is largely tacit knowledge, learnt informally, which is difficult to analyse and articulate oneself, or explain to others. To make this easier, and thus support learning, we developed the metaphor of a conductor leading musicians. Conclusions: Whilst everyone contributes to the joint effort of delivering a good WR, WR leadership is key. It ensures effective use of time and diverse expertise, and coordinates contributions rather like a conductor working with musicians. Although WR needs and approach

Done well, ward rounds (WRs) promote effective, safe care and collaboration; but WR quality varies. An improvement-focused appreciative inquiry (AI) into a large intensive care unit’s WR practices identified a pivotal axis of collaboration between the most senior medical role (the consultant) and the bedside nurse (BSN). This paper examines that axis of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) to deepen understanding of its implications. Data included ethnographic observations, interviews, and co-constructed AI with groups of staff. Four key concepts emerged from cyclical interpretive analysis: “need,” “presence,” “ability” and “willingness.” BSNs and consultants needed the interprofessional WR to enable their work; WR effectiveness was affected by whether they were both present, then able and willing to participate in IPC. BSN presence was necessary for effective and efficient IPC between these key roles. Indirect contributions, based on prior exchanges with colleagues or through written notes, reduced the joint problem-solving through discussion and negotiation that characterizes IPC to less efficient asynchronous interprofessional coordination. Factors affecting “presence,” “ability” and “willingness” are discussed alongside potential mitigations and acknowledgment of asymmetric power. Appreciative examination of interprofessional WRs identified mechanisms supporting and undermining effective WR IPC and the centrality of consultants’ and BSNs’ collaboration.

Done well, ward rounds (WRs) promote effective, safe care and collaboration; but WR quality varies. An improvement-focused appreciative inquiry (AI) into a large intensive care unit’s WR practices identified a pivotal axis of collaboration between the most senior medical role (the consultant) and the bedside nurse (BSN). This paper examines that axis of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) to deepen understanding of its implications. Data included ethnographic observations, interviews, and co-constructed AI with groups of staff. Four key concepts emerged from cyclical interpretive analysis: “need,” “presence,” “ability” and “willingness.” BSNs and consultants needed the interprofessional WR to enable their work; WR effectiveness was affected by whether they were both present, then able and willing to participate in IPC. BSN presence was necessary for effective and efficient IPC between these key roles. Indirect contributions, based on prior exchanges with colleagues or through written notes, reduced the joint problem-solving through discussion and negotiation that characterizes IPC to less efficient asynchronous interprofessional coordination. Factors affecting “presence,” “ability” and “willingness” are discussed alongside potential mitigations and acknowledgment of asymmetric power. Appreciative examination of interprofessional WRs identified mechanisms supporting and undermining effective WR IPC and the centrality of consultants’ and BSNs’ collaboration.

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Ward rounds (WRs) are complex social processes. Done well, WR discussions and decisions contribute to timely, safe, effective pro-gression of care. However, literature highlights medical dominance; marginalisation or absence of other perspectives, safety risks and suboptimal resource use. This study examined leadership behaviours and what supported good interprofessional WRs, defined as enabling interprofessional collaboration and decision making which progresses patient care in a safe and timely manner. Deepening appreciation of this art should support learning and improvements. Method: Mixed‐method appreciative inquiry (AI) into how WRs go well and could go well more often. Context: daily interprofessional consultant‐led WRs in a large adult critical care unit. Data: ethnographic and structured observations (73 h, 348 patient reviews); AI conversations and interviews (71 participants). Inductive iterative analysis shaped by Activity Theory. Participants: 256 qualified healthcare professionals working in the unit. Results: Leadership of good WRs supported (and minimized contradictions to): making good use of expertise and time, and effective communication. These three key activities required careful and skilled orchestration of contributions to each patient review, which was achieved through four distinct phases (a broadly pre-dictable script), ensuring opportunity to contribute while maintaining focus and a productive pace. This expertise is largely tacit knowledge, learnt informally, which is difficult to analyse and articulate oneself, or explain to others. To make this easier, and thus support learning, we developed the metaphor of a conductor leading musicians. Conclusions: Whilst everyone contributes to the joint effort of delivering a good WR, WR leadership is key. It ensures effective use of time and diverse expertise, and coordinates contributions rather like a conductor working with musicians. Although WR needs and approach

Done well, ward rounds (WRs) promote effective, safe care and collaboration; but WR quality varies. An improvement-focused appreciative inquiry (AI) into a large intensive care unit’s WR practices identified a pivotal axis of collaboration between the most senior medical role (the consultant) and the bedside nurse (BSN). This paper examines that axis of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) to deepen understanding of its implications. Data included ethnographic observations, interviews, and co-constructed AI with groups of staff. Four key concepts emerged from cyclical interpretive analysis: “need,” “presence,” “ability” and “willingness.” BSNs and consultants needed the interprofessional WR to enable their work; WR effectiveness was affected by whether they were both present, then able and willing to participate in IPC. BSN presence was necessary for effective and efficient IPC between these key roles. Indirect contributions, based on prior exchanges with colleagues or through written notes, reduced the joint problem-solving through discussion and negotiation that characterizes IPC to less efficient asynchronous interprofessional coordination. Factors affecting “presence,” “ability” and “willingness” are discussed alongside potential mitigations and acknowledgment of asymmetric power. Appreciative examination of interprofessional WRs identified mechanisms supporting and undermining effective WR IPC and the centrality of consultants’ and BSNs’ collaboration.