No abstract

Daily interprofessional rounds enhance collaboration among healthcare providers and improve hospital performance measures. However, it is unclear how healthcare providers' goals influence the processes and outcomes of interprofessional rounds. The purpose of this case study was to explore the goals of healthcare providers attending interprofessional rounds in an internal medicine ward. The second purpose was to explore the challenges encountered by healthcare providers while pursuing these goals. Three focus groups were held with healthcare providers of diverse professional backgrounds. Focus group field notes and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. The data indicated that there was no consensus among healthcare providers regarding the goals of interprofessional rounds. Discharge planning and patient care delivery were perceived as competing priorities during rounds, which limited the participation of healthcare providers. Nevertheless, study participants identified goals of rounds that were relevant to most care providers: developing shared perspectives of patients through direct communication, promoting collaborative decision making, coordinating care, and strengthening interprofessional relationships. Challenges in achieving the goals of interprofessional rounds included inconsistent attendance, exchange of irrelevant information, variable participation by healthcare providers, and inconsistent leadership. The findings of this study underscore the importance of shared goals in the context of interprofessional rounding.

BackgroundAnticoagulant therapies provide management options for potentially life-threatening thromboembolic conditions. They also carry significant safety risks, requiring careful consideration of medication dose, close monitoring, and follow-up. Inpatients are particularly at risk, considering the widespread use of anticoagulants in hospitals. This has prompted the introduction of safety goals for anticoagulants in Canada and the USA, which recommend increased pharmacist involvement to reduce patient harm. The goal of this review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacist-led inpatient anticoagulation services compared to usual or physician-managed care.MethodsThis narrative review includes articles identified through a literature search of PubMed, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases, as well as hand searches of the references of relevant articles. Full publications of pharmacist-managed inpatient anticoagulation services were eligible if they were published in English and assessed clinical outcomes.ResultsTwenty-six studies were included and further divided into two categories: 1) autonomous pharmacist-managed anticoagulation programs (PMAPs) and 2) pharmacist recommendation. Pharmacist management of heparin and warfarin appears to result in improvements in some surrogate outcomes (international normalized ratio [INR] stability and time in INR goal range), while results for others are mixed (time to therapeutic INR, length of stay, and activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT] measures). There is also some indication that PMAPs may be associated with reduced patient mortality. When direct thrombin inhibitors are managed by pharmacists, there seems to be a shorter time to therapeutic aPTT and a greater percentage of time in the therapeutic range, as well as a decrease in the frequency of medication errors. Pharmacist recommendation services have generally resulted in a greater time in therapeutic INR range, greater INR stability, decreased length of stay, and reduced major drug interactions, with no significant differences in safety outcomes.ConclusionPharmacist-led inpatient anticoagulation management seems to result in superior outcomes, as compared to usual or physician-managed care. This conclusion is limited by small, poorly designed studies lacking statistical power, focusing mainly on surrogate outcomes.

Introduction Biased language influences health care providers' perceptions of patients, impacts their clinical care, and prevents vulnerable populations from seeking treatment. Training clinicians to systematically replace biased verbal and written language is an essential step to providing equitable care. Methods We designed and implemented an interactive workshop to teach health care professionals a framework to identify and replace stigmatizing language in clinical practice. The workshop included a reflective exercise, role-play, brief didactic session, and case-based discussion. We developed the program for a broad target audience of providers and initially delivered it at three academic conferences. We used descriptive statistics to analyze Likert-style items on course evaluations and identified themes in open-text responses. Results A total of 66 participants completed course evaluations; most believed the workshop met its objectives (4.8 out of 5.0) and strongly agreed that they would apply skills learned (4.8). Participants planned to incorporate reflection into their verbal and written language. Potential barriers to applying course content included perceived difficulty in changing entrenched practice habits, burnout, and fatigue. Suggestions for improvement included more time for group discussions and strategies to teach skills to colleagues. Discussion Participants found the course material highly engaging and relevant to their clinical practice. Learners left the workshop feeling motivated to engage in more mindful word choice and to share key concepts with their colleagues.

No abstract