A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds do not reduce length of hospital stay and 28-day re-admission rate among older people hospitalised with acute illness: an Australian study. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Objective Structured Interdisciplinary Bedside Rounds (SIBR) were studied for their impact on patient outcomes like hospital stay length and re-admission rates in aged care wards.
  • In a study with 3644 patients, SIBR did not significantly reduce the median length of stay or re-admission rates, indicating no effective change with this communication model.
  • Despite the importance of effective communication in healthcare, SIBR's implementation did not yield the expected benefits, suggesting the need for further evaluation of such models before widespread adoption.

Article Abstract

Objective Structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds (SIBR) are being implemented across many hospitals in Australia despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. This study evaluated the effect of SIBR on two interconnected outcomes, namely length of stay (LOS) and 28-day re-admission. Methods In the present before-after study of 3644 patients, twice-weekly SIBR were implemented on two aged care wards. Although weekly case conferences were shortened during SIBR, all other practices remained unchanged. Demographic, medical and frailty measures were considered in appropriate analyses. Results There was no significant difference in median (interquartile range) LOS before and during SIBR (8 (5-15) vs 8 (4-15) days respectively; P=0.51). In an adjusted analysis, SIBR had no effect on LOS (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.05). The presence of dementia or delirium, or the ability to speak English, did not modify the effect of SIBR (P>0.05 for all). Similarly, SIBR had no effect on 28-day re-admission rates (20.3% vs 19.0% before and during SIBR respectively; P=0.36). Conclusions Although ineffective interdisciplinary communication is associated with negative outcomes for patients and healthcare services, models of care that aim to improve communication are not necessarily effective in reducing LOS or early re-admission. Clinical services implementing SIBR are encouraged to independently evaluate their effects. What is known about the topic? Ineffective interdisciplinary communication may harm patients and increase LOS. Only two publications have evaluated the implementation of SIBR, a new model of care that aims to improve interdisciplinary communication and collaboration. One paper reported that SIBR reduced unadjusted LOS and in-hospital mortality, whereas the other found that SIBR improved teamwork, communication and staff efficiency. What does this paper add? The effect of SIBR among acutely unwell older people on aged care wards is unknown. The present study is the first to evaluate the effects of SIBR in this population. It shows that the implementation of SIBR did not reduce LOS or early re-admission, and suggests that existing communication strategies may have weakened the effects of SIBR. What are the implications for practitioners? Policies and practice that promote the addition of communication strategies, such as SIBR, may not be effective in all patient populations. More research is needed to determine whether SIBR reduce these and other outcomes, particularly for services with weaker communication frameworks and protocols.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AH16019DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sibr
19
28-day re-admission
12
interdisciplinary communication
12
structured interdisciplinary
8
interdisciplinary bedside
8
bedside rounds
8
older people
8
sibr implemented
8
aged care
8
care wards
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!