Search

BACKGROUND Interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) have been described to improve outcomes. However, there is limited understanding of optimal IDR design. PURPOSE To systematically review published reports of IDR to catalog types of IDR and outcomes, and assess the influence of IDR design on outcomes. DATA SOURCES Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Journals Ovid, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost), and PubMed from 1990 through December 2014, and hand searching of article bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION Experimental, quasiexperimental, and observation studies in English-language literature where physicians rounded with another healthcare professional in inpatient medicine units. DATA EXTRACTION Studies were abstracted for study setting and characteristics, and design and outcomes of IDR. DATA SYNTHESIS Twenty-two studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Many were of low to medium quality with few high-quality studies. There is no clear definition of IDR in the literature. There was wide variation in IDR design and team composition across studies. We found three different models of IDR: pharmacist focused, bedside rounding, and interdisciplinary team rounding. There are reasonable data to support an association with length of stay and staff satisfaction but little data on patient safety or satisfaction. Positive outcomes may be related to particular components of IDR design, but the relationship between design and outcomes remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS Future studies should be more deliberately designed and fully reported with careful attention to team composition and features of IDR and their impact on selected outcomes. We present a proposed IDR definition and taxonomy for future studies. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:513–523. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine

The gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera, is one of the most important constraints to chickpea production. High acidity of chickpea exudates is associated with resistance to pod borer, H. armigera; however, acidic exudates in chickpea might influence the biological activity of the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), applied as a foliar spray or deployed in transgenic plants for controlling H. armigera. Therefore, studies were undertaken to evaluate the biological activity of Bt towards H. armigera on chickpea genotypes with different amounts of organic acids. Significantly lower leaf feeding, larval survival and larval weights were observed on ICC 506EB, followed by C 235, and ICCV 10 across Bt concentrations. Leaf feeding by the larvae and larval survival and weights decreased with an increase in Bt concentration. However, rate of decrease in leaf feeding and larval survival and weights with an increase in Bt concentration was greater on L 550 and ICCV 10 than on the resistant check, ICC 506EB, suggesting that factors in the resistant genotypes, particularly the acid exudates, resulted in lower levels of biological activity of Bt possibly because of antifeedant effects of the acid exudates. Antifeedant effects of acid exudates reduced food consumption and hence might reduce the efficacy of Bt sprays on insect-resistant chickpea genotypes or Bt-transgenic chickpeas, although the combined effect of plant resistance based on organic acids, and Bt had a greater effect on survival and development of H. armigera than Bt alone.