Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 155 No. 1 (2025)

Enhancing interprofessional ward rounds by identifying factors associated with low satisfaction and efficiency: a quantitative and qualitative national survey of Swiss healthcare professionals

DOI
https://doi.org/10.57187/s.4006
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2025;155:4006
Published
06.01.2025

Summary

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Interprofessional ward rounds are a cornerstone of patient-centred care for medical inpatients and offer opportunities to discuss and coordinate patient treatment and further management. We aimed to identify factors associated with lower satisfaction and efficiency of interprofessional ward rounds, as reported by physicians and nurses.

METHODS: An anonymous Swiss nationwide online survey of physicians and nurses was conducted in 28 Swiss internal medicine inpatient departments between 9 August and 19 October 2023. Analyses were conducted from November to December 2023. The primary outcome was physicians’ and nurses’ perceived lower satisfaction with ward rounds, which was assessed using visual analogue scales ranging from 0 to 10, with lower satisfaction defined as scores below the median. The main secondary outcome was perceived lower efficiency using a similar definition. Qualitative analysis was performed through inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS: The survey had a response rate of 21.6% (547/2530). Of the 547 physicians and nurses included in the final analysis, the median satisfaction was 7 points (interquartile range [IQR] 6–8). A total of 61% of physicians (156/254) and 76% of nurses (224/293) reported lower satisfaction. Lower satisfaction was reported significantly more frequently by nurses (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58–3.43; p ≤0.001) and female team members (adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.32–2.9; p <0.01). The median perceived efficiency of ward rounds was 7 points (IQR 5–8), and the nursing profession was associated with lower perceived efficiency (adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.3–2.93; p <0.01). Adherence to in-house guidelines for ward rounds was associated with satisfaction (adjusted OR for lower satisfaction 0.25, 95% CI 0.16–0.39; p <0.001) and perceived efficiency (adjusted OR for lower efficiency 0.27, 95% CI 0.17–0.43; p <0.001). Both physicians and nurses preferred to perform ward rounds as part of an interprofessional team. The qualitative analysis of the data revealed a preference for structured interprofessional ward rounds and the active involvement of nurses.

CONCLUSIONS: This survey revealed an overall high preference for interprofessional ward rounds. In addition, we identified several factors that were associated with lower satisfaction and efficiency. Structured in-house protocols for ward rounds may increase the satisfaction and efficiency of interprofessional collaboration during ward rounds.

References

  1. Royal College of Physicians. R.C.o.N., Ward Rounds in Medicine: Principles for best practice. RCP; 2012.
  2. Burger, C., Multi-Disciplinary Rounds: A Method to Improve Quality and Safety of Critically Ill Patients. 2007.
  3. Halm MA, Gagner S, Goering M, Sabo J, Smith M, Zaccagnini M. Interdisciplinary rounds: impact on patients, families, and staff. Clin Nurse Spec. 2003 May;17(3):133–42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00002800-200305000-00013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00002800-200305000-00013
  4. Becker C, Gamp M, Schuetz P, Beck K, Vincent A, Hochstrasser S, et al.; BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE Study Group. Effect of Bedside Compared With Outside the Room Patient Case Presentation on Patients’ Knowledge About Their Medical Care : A Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2021 Sep;174(9):1282–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-0909 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-0909
  5. Merriman C, Freeth D. Conducting a good ward round: how do leaders do it? J Eval Clin Pract. 2022 Jun;28(3):411–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13670 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13670
  6. Bhamidipati VS, Elliott DJ, Justice EM, Belleh E, Sonnad SS, Robinson EJ. Structure and outcomes of interdisciplinary rounds in hospitalized medicine patients: A systematic review and suggested taxonomy. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jul;11(7):513–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2575 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2575
  7. Walton V, Hogden A, Long JC, Johnson JK, Greenfield D. How Do Interprofessional Healthcare Teams Perceive the Benefits and Challenges of Interdisciplinary Ward Rounds. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019 Dec;12:1023–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S226330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S226330
  8. Heidemarie Weber WL. The Basel Standard for Doctorʼs Visits - Chance for a Successful Interaction Triad Patient-Doctor-Nursing Staff. Psychother Psych Med. 2011;2011(61):193–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1266079
  9. Treloar EC, Ting YY, Kovoor JG, Ey JD, Reid JL, Maddern GJ. Can Checklists Solve Our Ward Round Woes? A Systematic Review. World J Surg. 2022 Oct;46(10):2355–64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06635-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06635-5
  10. Trahan C, Hui AY, Binepal N. Standardization of rounds on a general paediatric ward: implementation of a checklist to improve efficiency, quality of rounds, and family satisfaction. Paediatr Child Health. 2021 Oct;27(2):111–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxab080 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxab080
  11. Cao V, Tan LD, Horn F, Bland D, Giri P, Maken K, et al.; Patient-Centered Structured Interdisciplinary Bedside Rounds in the Medical ICU. Patient-Centered Structured Interdisciplinary Bedside Rounds in the Medical ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018 Jan;46(1):85–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002807 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002807
  12. Stein J, Payne C, Methvin A, Bonsall JM, Chadwick L, Clark D, et al. Reorganizing a hospital ward as an accountable care unit. J Hosp Med. 2015 Jan;10(1):36–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2284 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2284
  13. Schwartz JI, Gonzalez-Colaso R, Gan G, Deng Y, Kaplan MH, Vakos PA, et al. Structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds improve interprofessional communication and workplace efficiency among residents and nurses on an inpatient internal medicine unit. J Interprof Care. 2024;38(3):427–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1863932 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1863932
  14. Gausvik C, Lautar A, Miller L, Pallerla H, Schlaudecker J. Structured nursing communication on interdisciplinary acute care teams improves perceptions of safety, efficiency, understanding of care plan and teamwork as well as job satisfaction. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2015 Jan;8:33–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S72623 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S72623
  15. (FOPH), F.O.o.P.H., Förderprogramm «Interprofessionalität im Gesundheitswesen 2017-2020». 2020.
  16. Trezzini B, Meyer B, Pepe A, Schäfer S, Jans C, Golder L. Der Fachkräftemangel gefährdet die gute Versorgungsqualität. Schweizerische Ärztezeitung. 2023;104(44):26–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/saez.2023.1260037407
  17. Weiterbildungsstättenregister SIWF. 2023.
  18. T.A.A.f.P.O.R., The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Survey Outcome Rate Calculator 4.1. 2020.
  19. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct;147(8):573–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010
  20. Weber E, et al. Ein alter Zopf oder moderne interprofessionelle Teamarbeit? - Die Visite als Instrument der spitalinternistischen Tätigkeit. Prim Hosp Care. 2020;20(6):205–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/phc-d.2020.10211
  21. Gross S, Beck K, Becker C, Gamp M, Mueller J, Loretz N, et al. Perception of physicians and nursing staff members regarding outside versus bedside ward rounds: ancillary analysis of the randomised BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE trial. Swiss Med Wkly. 2022 Jan;152(0304):w30112. doi: https://doi.org/10.4414/SMW.2022.w30112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/SMW.2022.w30112
  22. Källén E, Nimström S, Rosengren K. Content and structure of ward rounds focusing interprofessional collaboration on an internal medicine ward: an observational study of interprofessional collaboration. Nord J Nurs Res. 2022;42(4):219–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/20571585211052757 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20571585211052757
  23. Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Aug;25(8):626–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839
  24. enuvo GmbH. Umfrageonline.ch, 2023.
  25. Thomas D. A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. Am J Eval. 2006;27(2):237–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
  26. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  27. Stickrath C, Noble M, Prochazka A, Anderson M, Griffiths M, Manheim J, et al. Attending rounds in the current era: what is and is not happening. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jun;173(12):1084–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6041 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6041
  28. O’Leary KJ, Haviley C, Slade ME, Shah HM, Lee J, Williams MV. Improving teamwork: impact of structured interdisciplinary rounds on a hospitalist unit. J Hosp Med. 2011 Feb;6(2):88–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.714 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.714
  29. Huang KX, Chen CK, Pessegueiro AM, Dowling E, Dermenchyan A, Natarajan A, et al. Physician behaviors associated with increased physician and nurse communication during bedside interdisciplinary rounds. J Hosp Med. 2023 Oct;18(10):888–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13189 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13189
  30. Blakeney EA, Chu F, White AA, Smith GR Jr, Woodward K, Lavallee DC, et al. A scoping review of new implementations of interprofessional bedside rounding models to improve teamwork, care, and outcomes in hospitals. J Interprof Care. 2024;38(3):411–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2021.1980379 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2021.1980379
  31. Manojlovich M, Harrod M, Hofer TP, Lafferty M, McBratnie M, Krein SL. Using Qualitative Methods to Explore Communication Practices in the Context of Patient Care Rounds on General Care Units. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Mar;35(3):839–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05580-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05580-9
  32. O’Leary KJ, Wayne DB, Haviley C, Slade ME, Lee J, Williams MV. Improving teamwork: impact of structured interdisciplinary rounds on a medical teaching unit. J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Aug;25(8):826–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1345-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1345-6
  33. Redley B, Campbell D, Stockman K, Barnes S. Mixed methods quality evaluation of structured interprofessional medical ward rounds. Intern Med J. 2020 Feb;50(2):222–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14330