O'Leary Kevin J, Killarney Audrey, Hansen Luke O, Jones Sasha, Malladi Megan, Marks Kelly, M Shah Hiren
Hospital Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Dec;25(12):921-928. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004561. Epub 2015 Dec 1.
Though interprofessional bedside rounds have been promoted to enhance patient-centred care for hospitalised patients, few studies have been conducted in adult hospital settings and evidence of impact is lacking.
To evaluate the effect of patient-centred bedside rounds (PCBRs) on measures of patient-centred care.
Cluster randomised controlled trial involving four similar non-teaching hospitalist service units in a large urban hospital.
Hospitalised general medical patients.
We assembled working groups on two intervention units, consisting of professionals and patient/family members, to determine the optimal timing, duration and format for PCBR. Nurses and hospitalists rounded together in PCBR using a communication tool to provide a framework for discussion and unit leaders joined PCBR to provide coaching during initial weeks of implementation.
Using patient interviews, we assessed preferred and experienced roles in medical decision-making using the Control Preferences Scale, activation using the Short Form of the Patient Activation Measure, and satisfaction. We also compared postdischarge patient satisfaction survey items related to teamwork, involvement in decisions and overall care. We assessed nurses', physicians' and advanced practice providers' (APP) perceptions of PCBR using a survey developed for this study.
Overall, 650 patients were approached for structured interview during hospitalisation: 284 were excluded because of disorientation, 54 were excluded because of non-English language, 72 declined to participate and 4 withdrew from the study after enrolment. Interview data were available for 236 (122 control and 114 intervention unit) patients, and postdischarge satisfaction survey data were available for 493 (274 control and 219 intervention unit) patients. We found no significant differences in patients' perceptions of shared decision-making, activation or satisfaction with care. Results were similar in analyses based on whether PCBR had been performed (ie, per protocol). We also found no difference in postdischarge patient satisfaction items. Results were similar in multivariate analyses controlling for patient characteristics and clustering of patients within study units. A majority of nurses (78.6%), but only about half of hospitalist physicians and APPs felt that PCBR improved communication with patients (47.4%). A minority of nurses (46.4%) and physicians and APPs (36.8%) agreed that PCBR had improved the efficiency of their workday.
PCBR had no impact on patients' perceptions of shared decision-making, activation or satisfaction with care. Additional research is needed to identify optimal approaches that can be reliably implemented in hospital settings to improve patient-centred care.
尽管跨专业床边查房已被推广以加强对住院患者的以患者为中心的护理,但在成人医院环境中进行的研究很少,且缺乏影响证据。
评估以患者为中心的床边查房(PCBR)对以患者为中心的护理措施的影响。
在一家大型城市医院中,对四个类似的非教学医院医师服务单元进行整群随机对照试验。
住院的普通内科患者。
我们在两个干预单元组建了由专业人员和患者/家属组成的工作小组,以确定PCBR的最佳时间、时长和形式。护士和医院医师在PCBR中一起查房,使用一种沟通工具提供讨论框架,单元领导在实施的最初几周加入PCBR以提供指导。
通过患者访谈,我们使用控制偏好量表评估患者在医疗决策中偏好和体验到的角色,使用患者激活量表简表评估激活情况,以及评估满意度。我们还比较了出院后患者满意度调查中与团队合作、参与决策和整体护理相关的项目。我们使用为本研究开发的调查问卷评估护士、医生和高级实践提供者(APP)对PCBR的看法。
总体而言,650名患者在住院期间被邀请参加结构化访谈:284名因定向障碍被排除,54名因非英语被排除,72名拒绝参与,4名在入组后退出研究。236名(122名对照组和114名干预单元组)患者有访谈数据,493名(274名对照组和219名干预单元组)患者有出院后满意度调查数据。我们发现患者在共同决策、激活或护理满意度方面的看法没有显著差异。基于是否进行了PCBR(即按方案)的分析结果相似。我们还发现出院后患者满意度项目没有差异。在控制患者特征和研究单元内患者聚类的多变量分析中结果相似。大多数护士(78.6%),但只有约一半的医院医师和APP认为PCBR改善了与患者的沟通(47.4%)。少数护士(46.4%)、医生和APP(36.8%)同意PCBR提高了他们工作日的效率。
PCBR对患者在共同决策、激活或护理满意度方面的看法没有影响。需要进一步研究以确定可在医院环境中可靠实施的最佳方法,以改善以患者为中心的护理。