Bedside Patient Case Presentation Clinical Trial
Official title:
Effect of Bedside Patient Case Presentation Compared to Outside the Room Case Presentation on Patient Perception of Quality of Care and Patient Outcomes: a Randomized-controlled, Multicenter Trial
| Verified date | January 2020 |
| Source | University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland |
| Contact | n/a |
| Is FDA regulated | No |
| Health authority | |
| Study type | Interventional |
Patient case presentations during ward rounds can take place at the bedside or outside the room. The best approach to patient case presentation is yet unclear. Thus, the overall aim of this multicenter, randomized-controlled study is to test the hypothesis that outside the room patient case presentation compared to bedside patient case presentation results in better outcomes across different dimensions including patient understanding and perception of quality of care as well as patient outcomes, physicians' preferences, perception of quality and effectiveness, and timing of the ward rounds, respectively.
| Status | Completed |
| Enrollment | 1092 |
| Est. completion date | October 20, 2019 |
| Est. primary completion date | September 21, 2019 |
| Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
| Gender | All |
| Age group | 18 Years and older |
| Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - Consecutive adult (>18 years) medical inpatients during their first ward round independently of their underlying disease and reason for hospital stay. Exclusion Criteria: 1. Patients with cognitive impairment, such as dementia/delirium 2. Patients with paracusia. 3. Patients who do not understand local language(s). 4. Patients already included in this study |
| Country | Name | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | University Hospital Basel | Basel |
| Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
|---|---|
| University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland | Kantonsspital Aarau, Kantonsspital Liestal |
Switzerland,
Chauke HL, Pattinson RC. Ward rounds -- bedside or conference room? S Afr Med J. 2006 May;96(5):398-400. — View Citation
Lehmann LS, Brancati FL, Chen MC, Roter D, Dobs AS. The effect of bedside case presentations on patients' perceptions of their medical care. N Engl J Med. 1997 Apr 17;336(16):1150-5. — View Citation
O'Leary KJ, Killarney A, Hansen LO, Jones S, Malladi M, Marks K, M Shah H. Effect of patient-centred bedside rounds on hospitalised patients' decision control, activation and satisfaction with care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Dec;25(12):921-928. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004561. Epub 2015 Dec 1. — View Citation
Ramirez J, Singh J, Williams AA. Patient Satisfaction with Bedside Teaching Rounds Compared with Nonbedside Rounds. South Med J. 2016 Feb;109(2):112-5. doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000419. — View Citation
Seo M, Tamura K, Morioka E, Shijo H. Impact of medical round on patients' and residents' perceptions at a university hospital in Japan. Med Educ. 2000 May;34(5):409-11. — View Citation
| Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Subjective understanding of disease and management | average of the visual analog scale (VAS) score across the following three dimensions rated by the patient (0 "I have no knowledge at all about the situation" to 100 "I have best possible knowledge about the situation": I. Patients' subjective understanding of the disease II. Patients' subjective understanding of the therapeutic concept III. Patients' subjective understanding of the next steps | post ward round up to 36 h | |
| Secondary | Improvement understanding | Patients' perception about how well the current ward round improved the understanding of each of these three components, i.e., current disease, therapeutic concept, and next steps (VAS, 0-100) | post ward round up to 36 h | |
| Secondary | Objective understanding of disease and management | Comparison of patients' recall information regarding current main diagnosis, main therapeutic measures and next steps (qualitative information) with medical chart information. Answers regarding current main diagnosis will be categorized as: (1) patient correctly states both pathophysiology and localization, (2) patient correctly states either pathophysiology or localization, (3) patient states neither pathophysiology nor localization (correctly) but correctly states symptoms, (4) patient correctly states that the current diagnosis is still unclear, (5) patient states incorrect information, (6) patient correctly states a secondary diagnosis relevant for the current hospitalization Answers regarding main therapeutic measures and next steps will be categorized as: (1) correct (regarding main diagnosis), (2) incorrect (regarding main diagnosis), (3) correct (regarding secondary diagnosis), (4) incorrect (regarding secondary diagnosis) |
post ward round up to 36 h | |
| Secondary | Overall quality of care | Patients' perception (each rated on a VAS 0-100) regarding: comprehensibility of information during ward round, satisfaction with care, confidence in the medical team, perceived competence of the medical team, perceived interpersonal behavior during ward round, affective response of the patients, adequacy of ward round duration (includes two additional questions asking for patients' estimations on how much time the medical team spent on their case within the ward round as well as on average per day (estimates in minutes)) | post ward round up to 36 h | |
| Secondary | Follow up health status | Patients' perceived health status (EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire) | 30 days follow up after study inclusion | |
| Secondary | Follow up understanding | Patients' subjective (VAS 0-100) and objective (recall as compared to objective medical chart information) understanding | 30 days follow up after study inclusion | |
| Secondary | Follow up quality of hospital care | Patients' overall perspective of hospital care (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, HCAHPS) | 30 days follow up after study inclusion | |
| Secondary | Follow up readmission | Patients' readmission rate since study inclusion | 30 days follow up after study inclusion | |
| Secondary | Follow up duration of hospitalization | total duration of hospitalization | 30 days follow up after study inclusion | |
| Secondary | Treating team satisfaction | The treating team's satisfaction with ward round (rated on a VAS 0-100) | post ward round up to 96 h | |
| Secondary | Treating team performance | The treating team's perceived performance in the ward round (each rated on a VAS 0-100): time management of the ward round, interaction within the medical team and with the patient during ward round, perceived time management and feasibility | post ward round up to 96 h | |
| Secondary | Treating team affect | The treating team's affective response (rated on a VAS 0-100) | post ward round up to 96 h | |
| Secondary | Treating team preference | The treating team's preference of bedside compared to outside the room patient case presentation (rated on a semantic differential ranging from 1 "I prefer bedside ward rounds" to 6 "I prefer ward rounds outside the room") | post ward round up to 96 h | |
| Secondary | Timeliness | duration of the ward round (minutes) | during ward round which may last from 5 up to 30 minutes | |
| Secondary | Communication-specific items during ward rounds | Rated by investigator (nominal 3-point scale (1 = yes; 2 = no; 3 = not applicable): structuring of conversation, use of patient-centered techniques, use of physician-centered techniques, dealing with emotions, conveying of complex information, negotiation of shared concepts of disease and treatment, realization of shared decision making, breaking bad news | during ward round which may last from 5 up to 30 minutes |