From the Department of Public Health, Ghent University.
Strategic Policy Unit, Ghent University Hospital.
J Patient Saf. 2022 Jan 1;18(1):e40-e44. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000695.
Research indicates that having multiple healthcare professions and disciplines simultaneously at the patient's bedside improves interprofessional communication and collaboration, coordination of care, and patient-centered shared decision-making. So far, no review has been conducted, which included qualitative studies, explores the feasibility of the method, and looks at differences in definitions.
The aim of the study was to explore available evidence on the effects of interdisciplinary bedside rounds (IBRs) on patient centeredness, quality of care and team collaboration; the feasibility of IBRs; and the differences in definitions.
PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched. The reference lists of included articles and gray literature were also screened. Articles in English, Dutch, and French were included. There were no exclusion criteria for publication age or study design.
The included (N = 33) articles were critically reviewed and assessed with the Downs and Black checklist. The selection and summarizing of the articles were performed in a 3-step procedure, in which each step was performed by 2 researchers separately with researcher triangulation afterward.
Interdisciplinary bedside round has potentially a positive influence on patient centeredness, quality of care, and team collaboration, but because of a substantial variability in definitions, design, outcomes, reporting, and a low quality of evidence, definitive results stay uncertain. Perceived barriers to use IBR are time constraints, lack of shared goals, varied responsibilities of different providers, hierarchy, and coordination challenges. Future research should primarily focus on conceptualizing IBRs, in specific the involvement of patients, before more empiric, multicentered, and longitudinal research is conducted.
研究表明，让多个医疗保健专业和学科同时在患者床边工作，可以改善跨专业沟通与协作、护理协调以及以患者为中心的共同决策。迄今为止，还没有进行过包括定性研究在内的综述，以探讨该方法的可行性，并研究定义上的差异。
本研究旨在探讨关于跨学科床边查房（IBR）对以患者为中心、护理质量和团队协作的影响、IBR 的可行性以及定义差异的现有证据。
系统检索了 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 数据库。还对纳入文章的参考文献和灰色文献进行了筛选。纳入的文章为英文、荷兰文和法文。对出版物年龄或研究设计没有排除标准。
对纳入的（N=33）文章进行了批判性审查，并使用 Downs 和 Black 清单进行了评估。文章的选择和总结采用了 3 步程序，每一步都由 2 位研究人员分别进行，之后进行研究人员三角测量。
跨学科床边查房可能对以患者为中心、护理质量和团队协作产生积极影响，但由于定义、设计、结果、报告的差异较大，以及证据质量较低，确切结果仍不确定。使用 IBR 的障碍主要是时间限制、缺乏共同目标、不同提供者的职责差异、等级制度和协调挑战。未来的研究应主要集中在概念化 IBR 上，特别是在患者参与方面，然后再进行更多的实证、多中心和纵向研究。
