Gonzalo Jed D, Himes Judy, McGillen Brian, Shifflet Vicki, Lehman Erik
Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Health Systems Education, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Division of General Internal Medicine, Penn State Hershey Medical Center - HO34, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Sep 1;16(1):459. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1714-x.
Interprofessional collaboration improves the quality of medical care, but integration into inpatient workflow has been limited. Identification of systems-based factors promoting or diminishing bedside interprofessional rounds (BIR), one method of interprofessional collaboration, is critical for potential improvements in collaboration in hospital settings. The objective of this study was to determine whether the percentage of bedside interprofessional rounds in 18 hospital-based clinical units is attributable to spatial, staffing, patient, or nursing perception characteristics.
A prospective, cross-sectional assessment of data obtained from nursing audits in one large academic medical center on a sampling of hospitalized pediatric and adult patients in 18 units from November 2012 to October 2013 was performed. The primary outcome was the percentage of bedside interprofessional rounds, defined as encounters including one attending-level physician and a nurse discussing the case at the patient's bedside. Logistic regression models were constructed with four covariate domains: (1) spatial characteristics (unit type, bed number, square feet per bed), (2) staffing characteristics (nurse-to-patient ratios, admitting services to unit), (3) patient-level characteristics (length of stay, severity of illness), and (4) nursing perceptions of collegiality, staffing, and use of rounding scripts.
Of 29,173 patients assessed during 1241 audited unit-days, 21,493 patients received BIR (74 %, range 35-97 %). Factors independently associated with increased occurrence of bedside interprofessional rounds were: intensive care unit (odds ratio 9.63, [CI 5.30-17.42]), intermediate care unit (odds ratio 2.84, [CI 1.37-5.87]), hospital length of stay 5-7 days (odds ratio 1.89, [CI, 1.05-3.38]) and >7 days (odds ratio 2.27, [CI, 1.28-4.02]), use of rounding script (odds ratio 2.20, [CI 1.15-4.23]), and perceived provider/leadership support (odds ratio 3.25, [CI 1.83-5.77]).
Variation of bedside interprofessional rounds was more attributable to unit type and perceived support rather than spatial or relationship characteristics amongst providers. Strategies for transforming the value of hospital care may require a reconfiguration of care delivery toward more integrated practice units.
跨专业协作可提高医疗质量,但在住院患者工作流程中的整合程度有限。识别促进或阻碍床边跨专业查房(BIR,跨专业协作的一种方式)的基于系统的因素,对于改善医院环境中的协作至关重要。本研究的目的是确定18个医院临床科室的床边跨专业查房百分比是否可归因于空间、人员配备、患者或护理认知特征。
对2012年11月至2013年10月期间在一家大型学术医疗中心对18个科室的住院儿科和成年患者进行抽样调查所获得的护理审计数据进行前瞻性横断面评估。主要结果是床边跨专业查房的百分比,定义为包括一名主治医生和一名护士在患者床边讨论病例的会诊。构建了包含四个协变量域的逻辑回归模型:(1)空间特征(科室类型、床位数、每床平方英尺数),(2)人员配备特征(护士与患者比例、收治科室),(3)患者层面特征(住院时间、疾病严重程度),以及(4)护理对团队合作、人员配备和查房脚本使用的认知。
在1241个审计科室日评估的29173例患者中,21493例患者接受了床边跨专业查房(74%,范围35 - 97%)。与床边跨专业查房发生率增加独立相关的因素有:重症监护病房(优势比9.63,[CI 5.30 - 17.42])、中级护理病房(优势比2.84,[CI 1.37 - 5.87])、住院时间5 - 7天(优势比1.89,[CI 1.05 - 3.38])和>7天(优势比2.27,[CI 1.28 - 4.02])、使用查房脚本(优势比2.20,[CI 1.15 - 4.23])以及感知到的提供者/领导支持(优势比3.25,[CI 1.83 - 5.77])。
床边跨专业查房的差异更多地归因于科室类型和感知到的支持,而非提供者之间的空间或关系特征。转变医院护理价值的策略可能需要将护理服务重新配置为更综合的实践单元。