IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i9-10p1759-1792.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intentional rounding in acute adult healthcare settings: A systematic mixed‐method review

Author

Listed:
  • Angela Christiansen
  • Linda Coventry
  • Renée Graham
  • Elisabeth Jacob
  • Di Twigg
  • Lisa Whitehead

Abstract

Aims and objectives To determine the impact of intentional rounding on patient and nursing outcomes and identify the barriers and facilitators surrounding implementation. Background Intentional rounding is an organised approach whereby health professionals’ regularly check on patients to ensure their fundamental care needs are met. Despite wide scale adoption of intentional rounding, there is limited evidence to inform practice. Methods This systematic mixed‐method review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, SCOPUS and WEB of SCIENCE were searched to identify research studies published in English between January 2006–January 2017 that reported on intentional rounding and patient and nursing staff outcomes. Studies were assessed for methodological quality. The findings were synthesised into themes using a narrative approach. Results Twenty‐one studies were included in the review. Six studies reported a reduction in the number of falls, and a further five studies reported a reduction in call bell use following the introduction of intentional rounding. Nurses’ satisfaction and attitudes towards intentional rounding were reported in seven studies with equivocal results. The quality of the studies was weak making comparisons difficult. Conclusions While results suggest positive outcomes for falls and call bell use, conclusions on the available data are overshadowed by the quality of the studies. Well‐designed studies are required to advance evidence in this field. Relevance to clinical practice The evidence on intentional rounding is mixed and suggests that the introduction of intentional rounding should be accompanied by a protocol for robust evaluation to measure the impact of this process change. This should be accompanied by standardised reporting measures to enable comparisons and contribute to the quality of available evidence on intentional rounding.

Suggested Citation

  • Angela Christiansen & Linda Coventry & Renée Graham & Elisabeth Jacob & Di Twigg & Lisa Whitehead, 2018. "Intentional rounding in acute adult healthcare settings: A systematic mixed‐method review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(9-10), pages 1759-1792, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:9-10:p:1759-1792
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14370
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14370?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kelli Flowers & Kylie Wright & Rachel Langdon & Maureen McIlwrath & Craig Wainwright & Maree Johnson, 2016. "Intentional rounding: facilitators, benefits and barriers," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(9-10), pages 1346-1355, May.
    2. Marie Hutchinson & Debra Jackson, 2016. "Editorial: Intentional rounding: unpacking the ritual, routine and evidence impasse," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1-2), pages 5-7, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tracey Stone & Jon Banks & Heather Brant & Joanna Kesten & Emma Redfern & Ann Remmers & Sabi Redwood, 2020. "The introduction of a safety checklist in two UK hospital emergency departments: A qualitative study of implementation and staff use," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7-8), pages 1267-1275, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leah East & Dianne Targett & Hamish Yeates & Elizabeth Ryan & Louisa Quiddington & Cindy Woods, 2020. "Nurse and patient satisfaction with intentional rounding in a rural Australian setting," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7-8), pages 1365-1371, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:9-10:p:1759-1792. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.