How Do Interprofessional Healthcare Teams Perceive the Benefits and Challenges of Interdisciplinary Ward Rounds

Abstract

Purpose

Interdisciplinary bedside ward rounds have the capacity to facilitate coordinated interprofessional patient care. To be an effective means of care coordination, clinicians need an explicit understanding of how these rounds contribute to patient care. By identifying benefits and challenges to the effective use of interdisciplinary ward rounds, clinicians create an opportunity to improve interprofessional teamwork, care planning, and coordination of patient care.

Methods

A survey was conducted with frontline professionals in two acute care and two rehabilitation wards from a metropolitan teaching hospital. There were 77 participants, representing medical officers, nurses, and allied health clinicians. Questions examined the perceived benefits and challenges of conducting interdisciplinary ward rounds in their units. Survey findings were coded for meaning and then grouped into themes.

Results

Benefits revealed a desired care delivery model challenged by the complexities of organizational and professional cultures. The themes of “being on the same page”, “focusing on patients”, and “holistic care planning” underpinned the ideas of collaboration and improved patient-centred care, that is, benefits to patients. Challenges centred on health professionals' time constraints and the coordination of teams to enable participation in rounds. The themes were more distinct, logistical barriers of “time”, “workforce”, and “care planning”.

Conclusion

Overall, clinicians recognise there are greater benefits to IBRs and have a willingness to participate. However, careful consideration is required to introduce and continually achieve the best from IBR as they require changes in organizational context and culture.

Keywords:

• challenges
• benefits
• coordination
• patient focused care
• time factors
• communication

Ethical Approval

Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Ethics Committee LNR.13.HAWKE.433.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.