{"title":"Patient involvement in interdisciplinary bedside rounds from nursing and medical students' perceptions. A Swedish qualitative interview study.","authors":"Yelyzaveta Hordiienko, Cecilia Fagerström, Hafrún Rafnar Finnbogadóttir","doi":"10.1111/scs.13307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient involvement in the interdisciplinary bedside round (IBR) increases care quality and safety but is influenced and perceived differently by different round participants. Nursing and medical students are still not structurally embedded in the healthcare system, and they participate in interdisciplinary bedside rounds for educational purposes. Thus, the students may give a valuable perspective on patient involvement from the 'outside view'.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to describe nursing and medical students' perceptions of patient involvement in IBRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study has a qualitative design with individual interviews. Eighteen informants were recruited with the help of gatekeepers from two sites in Sweden: a university training health clinic and a county hospital. They participated in one-to-one semi-structured interviews, which were analysed with an inductive qualitative content analysis approach.</p><p><strong>Ethical issues and approval: </strong>The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Informed consent was received from all participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results yielded five categories. Two sub-themes and one theme of meaning emerged as a 'red thread' across the categories. The theme of meaning was: 'In hospital rounds, the patient is a respected guest, but with a disadvantaged \"alien status\" due to the hosts' difficult medical language and unclear routines'. Students perceive patients are not fully involved in IBRs, and the healthcare team controls this involvement due to patients' lack of knowledge and vulnerability, the hectic hospital environment, and complicated medical language. Doctors lead IBRs and encourage or discourage patient involvement and nurses act as patient advocates, supporting their involvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>According to nursing and medical students, patients are seldom involved in IBRs due to multiple interaction barriers and despite communicational facilitators. Their involvement depends on healthcare professionals. Further research should investigate other IBRs stakeholders' perspectives on patient involvement in IBRs to facilitate it.</p>","PeriodicalId":48171,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13307","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Patient involvement in the interdisciplinary bedside round (IBR) increases care quality and safety but is influenced and perceived differently by different round participants. Nursing and medical students are still not structurally embedded in the healthcare system, and they participate in interdisciplinary bedside rounds for educational purposes. Thus, the students may give a valuable perspective on patient involvement from the 'outside view'.
Aim: This study aimed to describe nursing and medical students' perceptions of patient involvement in IBRs.
Methods: This study has a qualitative design with individual interviews. Eighteen informants were recruited with the help of gatekeepers from two sites in Sweden: a university training health clinic and a county hospital. They participated in one-to-one semi-structured interviews, which were analysed with an inductive qualitative content analysis approach.
Ethical issues and approval: The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Informed consent was received from all participants.
Results: The results yielded five categories. Two sub-themes and one theme of meaning emerged as a 'red thread' across the categories. The theme of meaning was: 'In hospital rounds, the patient is a respected guest, but with a disadvantaged "alien status" due to the hosts' difficult medical language and unclear routines'. Students perceive patients are not fully involved in IBRs, and the healthcare team controls this involvement due to patients' lack of knowledge and vulnerability, the hectic hospital environment, and complicated medical language. Doctors lead IBRs and encourage or discourage patient involvement and nurses act as patient advocates, supporting their involvement.
Conclusions: According to nursing and medical students, patients are seldom involved in IBRs due to multiple interaction barriers and despite communicational facilitators. Their involvement depends on healthcare professionals. Further research should investigate other IBRs stakeholders' perspectives on patient involvement in IBRs to facilitate it.
期刊介绍:
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences is an established quarterly, peer reviewed Journal with an outstanding international reputation. As the official publication of the Nordic College of Caring Science, the Journal shares their mission to contribute to the development and advancement of scientific knowledge on caring related to health, well-being, illness and the alleviation of human suffering. The emphasis is on research that has a patient, family and community focus and which promotes an interdisciplinary team approach. Of special interest are scholarly articles addressing and initiating dialogue on theoretical, empirical and methodological concerns related to critical issues. All articles are expected to demonstrate respect for human dignity and accountability to society. In addition to original research the Journal also publishes reviews, meta-syntheses and meta-analyses.