In a prior study involving 2 medical units, Structured Interdisciplinary Rounds (SIDRs) improved teamwork and reduced adverse events (AEs). SIDR was implemented on 5 additional units, and a pre- versus postintervention comparison was performed. SIDR combined a structured format for communication with daily interprofessional meetings. Teamwork was assessed using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (score range = 0-100), and AEs were identified using queries of information systems confirmed by 2 physician researchers. Paired analyses for 82 professionals completing surveys both pre and post implementation revealed improved teamwork (mean 76.8 ± 14.3 vs 80.5 ± 11.6; P = .02), which was driven mainly by nurses (76.4 ± 14.1 vs 80.8 ± 10.4; P = .009). The AE rate was similar across study periods (3.90 vs 4.07 per 100 patient days; adjusted IRR = 1.08; P = .60). SIDR improved teamwork yet did not reduce AEs. Higher baseline teamwork scores and lower AE rates than the prior study may reflect a positive cultural shift that began prior to the current study.

BACKGROUND:Interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) provide a means to assemble hospital team members and improve collaboration. Little is known about teamwork during IDR.OBJECTIVE:To evaluate and characterize teamwork during IDR.DESIGN:Cross‐sectional observational study.SETTING:Six medical units which had implemented structured interdisciplinary rounds (SIDR).MEASUREMENTS:We adapted the Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS) tool, a behaviorally anchored rating scale shown to be reliable and valid in surgical settings. OTAS provides scores ranging from 0 to 6 (0 = problematic behavior; 6 = exemplary behavior) across 5 domains (communication, coordination, cooperation/backup behavior, leadership, and monitoring/situational awareness) and for prespecified subteams. Two researchers conducted direct observations using the adapted OTAS tool.RESULTS:We conducted 7–8 independent observations for each unit (total = 44) and 20 joint observations. Inter‐rater reliability was excellent at the unit level (Spearman's rho = 0.75), and good across domains (rho = 0.53–0.68) and subteams (rho = 0.53–0.76) with the exception of the physician subteam, for which it was poor (rho = 0.35). Though teamwork scores were generally high, we found differences across units, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) 4.5 (3.9–4.9) for the lowest and 5.4 (5.3–5.5) for the highest performing unit (P < 0.01). Domain scores differed, with leadership receiving the lowest (median [IQR] = 5.0 [4.6–5.3]), and cooperation/backup behavior and monitoring/situational awareness receiving highest scores (median [IQR] = 5.4 [5.0–5.5] and 5.4 [5.0–5.7]). Differences across subteams were of borderline significance (P = 0.05).CONCLUSIONS:The adapted OTAS instrument demonstrated acceptable reliability for assessing teamwork during SIDR across units, domains, and most subteams. Variation in performance suggests a need to improve consistency of teamwork and emphasizes the importance of leadership. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2012. © 2012 Society of Hospital Medicine

BACKGROUND Obesity‐related comorbidities frequently contribute to acute illness. Obesity interventions during hospitalization are not often utilized but may be effective. OBJECTIVE To examine whether inpatient weight loss intervention with postdischarge follow‐up results in weight loss at 6 months when compared to control. DESIGN Prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING Academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois. PATIENTS Obese adult inpatients. INTERVENTION Intervention subjects viewed a weight education video, underwent personalized counseling, and set specific weight loss, dietary, and fitness goals prior to discharge. All participants were followed by phone over the subsequent 6 months. The trial was unblinded to participants, physicians, and investigators. MEASUREMENTS Primary outcome was weight change between groups at 6 months. Weight change from baseline and waist‐to‐hip ratios (WHR) were also assessed. RESULTS For 176 participants in the intention‐to‐treat analysis, mean baseline weight for the intervention group was 107.7 kg (standard deviation [SD] = 16.7) and 105.1 kg (SD = 17.4) for controls. Mean weight loss at 6 months was 1.08 kg (SD = 4.33) for intervention subjects and 1.35 kg (SD = 3.65) among controls. There was no significant difference in weight loss between groups at 6 months (P = 0.26). As‐treated analysis yielded similar results. There were no differences in WHRs between the intervention and control at 6 months (0.04 vs 0.04, P = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS We found no difference in weight loss between the intervention and control groups at 6 months. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2014;9:515–520. © 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine