Structured Interdisciplinary Bedside Rounds in an Australian tertiary hospital emergency department: Patient satisfaction and staff perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patient satisfaction levels, staff perspectives and the time required using Structured Interdisciplinary Bedside Rounds (SIBR; Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA) versus traditional medical ward rounds (TR) in the ED. METHODS: We conducted an observational cross-sectional study. Ward rounds were categorised into a modified SIBR and TR at a tertiary ED in Australia according to predefined criteria. We compared the duration of ward rounds, invited patients and staff to complete anonymous questionnaires to compare patient satisfaction and staff perspectives. RESULTS: During the study period, SIBR group took significantly longer time than TR per patient (122 vs 88 s, P < 0.001). Patient questionnaires were completed for 320 encounters (101 SIBR, 219 TR). Patient satisfaction scores across all measured domains were significantly higher in SIBR than in the TR group. Patients often pointed out a lack of communication with medical staff during TR. Based on 131 completed staff questionnaires, nurses reported SIBR to be more useful than TR (nurses 78% vs doctors 44%, P = 0.001). The SIBR group had increased instances of staff introductions to patients (91% vs 66%, P < 0.001) and patients' involvement in discussion of management plans (98% vs 53%, P < 0.01). SIBR only weakly correlated with the overall positive experience in the ED (r = 0.19, P = 0.001). Organisational implementation issues raised through qualitative methods are reported in the paper. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the benefits that could be gained through SIBR technique over the TR method. Better workforce and resource planning is needed to support the sustainable implementation of SIBR in ED.