Search

Poor communication within healthcare teams occurs commonly, contributing to inefficiency, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) are a promising model that brings two or more health professions together with patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the breadth and quality of IBR literature to identify and describe gaps and opportunities for future research. We followed an adapted Arksey and O'Malley Framework and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for key IBR words and concepts through June 2020. Seventy-nine articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data abstraction. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Publications in this field have increased since 2014, and the majority of studies reported positive impacts of IBR implementation across an array of team, patient, and care quality/delivery outcomes. Despite the preponderance of positive findings, great heterogeneity, and a reliance on quantitative non-randomized study designs remain in the extant research. A growing number of interventions to improve safety, quality, and care experiences in hospital settings focus on redesigning daily inpatient rounds. Limited information on IBR characteristics and implementation strategies coupled with widespread variation in terminology, study quality, and design create challenges in assessing the effectiveness of models of rounds and optimal implementation strategies. This scoping review highlights the need for additional studies of rounding models, implementation strategies, and outcomes that facilitate comparative research.

Absence of nurse manager succession planning in an academic medical center necessitated a quality improvement project to identify, select, and enroll emerging leaders into a development program. The authors used organizational competencies and an evidence-based approach to effectively identify barriers, select future nurse leaders, and discover opportunities for process improvement.

Article-at-a-Glance Background In 1995 The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore convened an interdisciplinary task force to evaluate sedation practices, create a comprehensive set of sedation guidelines, and evaluate patient safety outcomes following guideline implementation. Methodology Baseline data were collected on all procedures in which sedation was administered by a nonanesthesiologist for a 6-month period, using scanning technology to automate data entry. Sedation practices were reviewed, and four critical events were examined: unresponsiveness, obstructed airway, airway placement, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In 1998 data collection procedures were repeated to evaluate the impact of the guidelines on sedation practices and patient safety outcomes. Results In 1995 sedation practices varied, and one or more critical events occurred in 45 (1.4%) of 3,255 procedures. Steps taken included development and dissemination of a clinical sedation guideline, including monitoring criteria to guide nonanesthesiologists, and evaluation planning. In 1998 sedation practices were more consistent. One or more critical events occurred in 50 (1.6%) of 3,134 procedures, representing a small increase in critical events from 1995. More events of unresponsiveness were identified, and no event required CPR. Although not statistically significant, this trend suggests that critical events were being identified earlier, preventing patients from progressing to a more serious event requiring CPR. Steps taken included further refinement of clinical practice guidelines and establishment of ongoing monitoring. Conclusions Standardization of sedation practices is a complex and resource-intensive activity, requiring ongoing oversight and monitoring. Commitment from medical staff, nursing staff, and administration is essential to successful implementation of sedation guidelines.

Information about patient outcomes is increasingly available to guide consumers in their selection of healthcare. By unifying the traditionally separate programs of performance improvement, case management, and research, nurse executives can take control of care processes and outcomes. This article provides four case examples of patient care improvements achieved using performance improvement, case management, and research approaches. The use of the technologies outlined in the Johnson and Nolan article in this issue, "A Guide to Choosing Technology to Support the Measurement of Patient Outcomes", also is described.