BR have been implemented in a variety of hospital settings, often 'bundled' with cointerventions. However, BR have demonstrated limited effect on patient-centred outcomes.

Purpose To determine if bedside rounds, compared with other forms of hospital ward rounds, improve learning outcomes in medical education. Method For this systematic review, the authors searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from inception through February 20, 2020. Experimental studies were included if they (1) compared bedside rounds to any other form of rounds in a hospital-based setting, and (2) reported a quantitative comparison of a learning outcome (e.g., learner reaction, knowledge, skills, behavior, health care delivery) among physicians-in-training (medical students, residents, fellows). Extraction elements were summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of design, implementation, and outcomes. Results Twenty studies met inclusion criteria, including 7 randomized trials. All studies involved resident physicians, and 11 also involved medical students. The design and implementation of bedside rounds varied widely, with most studies (n = 13) involving cointerventions (e.g., staff education, real-time order entry). Of the 15 studies that reported learner satisfaction, 7 favored bedside rounds, 4 favored the control, and 4 were equivocal. Of the 4 studies reporting an outcome of learners’ knowledge and skills, 2 favored bedside rounds and 2 were equivocal. Of the 8 studies that reported on learner behavior (e.g., bedside communication with patients), 5 favored bedside rounds, 1 favored the control, and 2 were equivocal. Finally, of the 14 studies that reported a health care delivery outcome (e.g., teamwork, rounding time), 8 favored bedside rounds and 6 were equivocal. Due to the high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity across studies, the overall strength of evidence was low. Conclusions In hospital-based settings, learners’ satisfaction with bedside rounds is mixed. However, bedside rounds appear to have a positive effect on learner behavior and health care delivery. Given their potential value, additional research is needed to identify barriers to and facilitators of educationally successful bedside rounds.

BACKGROUND Failures in communication at the time of patient handoff have been implicated as contributing factors to preventable adverse events. OBJECTIVE Examine the relationship between face‐to‐face handoffs and the rate of patient outcomes, including adverse events. DESIGN Retrospective cohort. SETTING A 1157‐bed academic tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS There were 805 adult patients admitted to general internal medicine services. INTERVENTION Retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes, including the rate of adverse events, of patients whose care was transitioned with and without face‐to‐face handoffs. MEASUREMENTS Rapid response team calls, code team calls, transfers to a higher level of care, death in hospital, 30‐day readmission rate, length of stay, and adverse events (as identified using the Global Trigger Tool). RESULTS There was no significant difference with respect to the frequency of rapid response team calls, code team calls, transfers to a higher level of care, deaths in hospital, length of stay, 30‐day readmission rate, or adverse events between patients whose care was transitioned with or without a face‐to‐face handoff. CONCLUSIONS Face‐to‐face handoff of patients admitted to general medical services at a large academic tertiary referral hospital was not associated with a significant difference in measured patient outcomes, including the rate of adverse events, compared to a non–face‐to‐face handoff. Additional study is needed to determine the qualities of patient handoff that optimize efficiency and safety. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;10:137–141. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine

No abstract