↓ Skip to main content

Interprofessional collaborative care characteristics and the occurrence of bedside interprofessional rounds: a cross-sectional analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interprofessional collaborative care characteristics and the occurrence of bedside interprofessional rounds: a cross-sectional analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1714-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jed D. Gonzalo, Judy Himes, Brian McGillen, Vicki Shifflet, Erik Lehman

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 148 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 44 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 52 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 13%
Psychology 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 48 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2017.
All research outputs
#780,892
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#182
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,932
of 339,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#5
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.