Perceptions of rounding checklists in the intensive care unit: a qualitative study

Author:

Hallam Bethany DanaeORCID,Kuza Courtney C,Rak Kimberly,Fleck Jessica C,Heuston Melanie M,Saha Debjit,Kahn Jeremy M

Abstract

BackgroundRounding checklists are an increasingly common quality improvement tool in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, effectiveness studies have shown conflicting results. We sought to understand ICU providers’ perceptions of checklists, as well as barriers and facilitators to effective utilisation of checklists during daily rounds.ObjectivesTo understand how ICU providers perceive rounding checklists and develop a framework for more effective rounding checklist implementation.MethodsWe performed a qualitative study in 32 ICUs within 14 hospitals in a large integrated health system in the USA. We used two complementary data collection methods: direct observation of daily rounds and semistructured interviews with ICU clinicians. Observations and interviews were thematically coded and primary themes were identified using a combined inductive and deductive approach.ResultsWe conducted 89 interviews and performed 114 hours of observation. Among study ICUs, 12 used checklists and 20 did not. Participants described the purpose of rounding checklists as a daily reminder for evidence-based practices, a tool for increasing shared understanding of patient care across care providers and a way to increase the efficiency of rounds. Checklists were perceived as not helpful when viewed as overstandardising care and when they are not relevant to a particular ICU’s needs. Strategies to improve checklist implementation include attention to the brevity and relevance of the checklist to the particular ICU, consistent use over time, and integration with daily work flow.ConclusionOur results provide potential insights about why ICU rounding checklists frequently fail to improve outcomes and offer a framework for effective checklist implementation through greater feedback and accountability.

Funder

Foundation for the National Institutes of Health

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Health Policy

Reference19 articles.

1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001.

2. The checklist—a tool for error management and performance improvement

3. Gawande A . The checklist manifesto-how to get it right. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2009.

4. A Systematic Review of Evidence-Informed Practices for Patient Care Rounds in the ICU*

5. Measurable Outcomes of Quality Improvement in the Trauma Intensive Care Unit: The Impact of a Daily Quality Rounding Checklist

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3