Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Effect of patient-centred bedside rounds on hospitalised patients’ decision control, activation and satisfaction with care
  1. Kevin J O’Leary1,
  2. Audrey Killarney1,
  3. Luke O Hansen1,
  4. Sasha Jones1,
  5. Megan Malladi2,
  6. Kelly Marks2,
  7. Hiren M Shah1
  1. 1Hospital Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  2. 2Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kevin J O’Leary, Hospital Medicine, Northwestern University, 211 E Ontario, 7th floor, Chicago, IL 60611, USA; keoleary{at}


Importance Though interprofessional bedside rounds have been promoted to enhance patient-centred care for hospitalised patients, few studies have been conducted in adult hospital settings and evidence of impact is lacking.

Objective To evaluate the effect of patient-centred bedside rounds (PCBRs) on measures of patient-centred care.

Design and setting Cluster randomised controlled trial involving four similar non-teaching hospitalist service units in a large urban hospital.

Participants Hospitalised general medical patients.

Intervention We assembled working groups on two intervention units, consisting of professionals and patient/family members, to determine the optimal timing, duration and format for PCBR. Nurses and hospitalists rounded together in PCBR using a communication tool to provide a framework for discussion and unit leaders joined PCBR to provide coaching during initial weeks of implementation.

Main outcomes Using patient interviews, we assessed preferred and experienced roles in medical decision-making using the Control Preferences Scale, activation using the Short Form of the Patient Activation Measure, and satisfaction. We also compared postdischarge patient satisfaction survey items related to teamwork, involvement in decisions and overall care. We assessed nurses’, physicians’ and advanced practice providers’ (APP) perceptions of PCBR using a survey developed for this study.

Results Overall, 650 patients were approached for structured interview during hospitalisation: 284 were excluded because of disorientation, 54 were excluded because of non-English language, 72 declined to participate and 4 withdrew from the study after enrolment. Interview data were available for 236 (122 control and 114 intervention unit) patients, and postdischarge satisfaction survey data were available for 493 (274 control and 219 intervention unit) patients. We found no significant differences in patients’ perceptions of shared decision-making, activation or satisfaction with care. Results were similar in analyses based on whether PCBR had been performed (ie, per protocol). We also found no difference in postdischarge patient satisfaction items. Results were similar in multivariate analyses controlling for patient characteristics and clustering of patients within study units. A majority of nurses (78.6%), but only about half of hospitalist physicians and APPs felt that PCBR improved communication with patients (47.4%). A minority of nurses (46.4%) and physicians and APPs (36.8%) agreed that PCBR had improved the efficiency of their workday.

Conclusions PCBR had no impact on patients’ perceptions of shared decision-making, activation or satisfaction with care. Additional research is needed to identify optimal approaches that can be reliably implemented in hospital settings to improve patient-centred care.

  • Patient-centred care
  • Hospital medicine
  • Patient satisfaction
  • Teams

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published Online First. Figure 1 has been corrected.

  • Contributors KJO designed the study, conducted all analyses and led the writing of the manuscript. AK and SJ acquired data, contributed to interpretation of results and provided critical review on all drafts of the manuscript. LH, MM, KM and HMS guided study design, led implementation of the intervention, contributed to interpretation of results and provided critical review on all drafts of manuscript.

  • Funding The Globe Foundation.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Northwestern University Institutional Review Board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles