A survey of rounding practices in Canadian adult intensive care units

22Citations
Citations of this article
71Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To describe rounding practices in Canadian adult Intensive Care Units (ICU) and identify opportunities for improvement. Design Mixed methods design. Cross sectional survey of Canadian Adult ICUs (n = 180) with purposefully sampled follow-up interviews (n = 7). Measurements and Main Results Medical directors representing 111 ICUs (62%) participated in the survey. Rounding practices varied across ICUs with the majority reporting the use of interprofessional rounds (81%) that employed an open (94%) and collaborative (86%) approach, occurred at the patient's bedside (82%), and started at a standard time (79%) and standard location (56%). Most participants reported that patients (83%) and family members (67%) were welcome to attend rounds. Approximately half of ICUs (48%) used tools to facilitate rounds. Interruptions during rounds were reported to be common (i.e., 1 interruption for ≤ 50% of patients) in 46% of ICUs. Four themes were identified from qualitative analysis of participant responses to open-ended survey questions and interviews: multidisciplinarity, patient and family involvement, factors influencing productivity, and teaching and learning. Conclusions There is considerable variation in current rounding practices in Canadian medical/surgical ICUs. Opportunities exist to improve ICU rounds including ensuring the engagement of essential participants, clearly defining participant roles, establishing a standardized approach to the rounding process, minimizing interruptions, modifying the role of teaching, utilizing a structured rounding tool, and developing a metric for measuring rounding quality.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Holodinsky, J. K., Hebert, M. A., Zygun, D. A., Rigal, R., Berthelot, S., Cook, D. J., & Stelfox, H. T. (2015). A survey of rounding practices in Canadian adult intensive care units. PLoS ONE, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145408

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free