Structure and outcomes of interdisciplinary rounds in hospitalized medicine patients: A systematic review and suggested taxonomy.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) have been described to improve outcomes. However, there is limited understanding of optimal IDR design. PURPOSE: To systematically review published reports of IDR to catalog types of IDR and outcomes, and assess the influence of IDR design on outcomes. DATA SOURCES Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Journals Ovid, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost), and PubMed from 1990 through December 2014, and hand searching of article bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION Experimental, quasiexperimental, and observation studies in English-language literature where physicians rounded with another healthcare professional in inpatient medicine units. DATA EXTRACTION Studies were abstracted for study setting and characteristics, and design and outcomes of IDR. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Many were of low to medium quality with few high-quality studies. There is no clear definition of IDR in the literature. There was wide variation in IDR design and team composition across studies. We found three different models of IDR pharmacist focused, bedside rounding, and interdisciplinary team rounding. There are reasonable data to support an association with length of stay and staff satisfaction but little data on patient safety or satisfaction. Positive outcomes may be related to particular components of IDR design, but the relationship between design and outcomes remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should be more deliberately designed and fully reported with careful attention to team composition and features of IDR and their impact on selected outcomes. We present a proposed IDR definition and taxonomy for future studies. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11513-523. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.