Understanding Different Functions of Ward Rounds In Paediatric Oncology: A Qualitative Study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-693120/v1

Purpose

The ward round (WR) is a core routine for interprofessional communication and medical care planning. It allows health care professionals (HCP) and patients to meet regularly and encourages patients to take an active role. Despite its high value for patient-centred care, there is no universal definition of WR. Little is known about the attitudes of participants towards a ‘good’ WR. This study aims to capture the experiences and expectations of participants to better understand WR needs.

Methods

13 Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, parents, nurses and doctors of a paediatric oncology ward. The phenomenological framework by Colaizzi was used to identify major themes.

Results

Four major themes (MT) were identified by standardised analysis of the interviews: (1) Aims and functions of a WR; (2) Structure and organisational requirements; (3) WR participants and interpersonal communication; (4) Importance of education about WR. Further analysis elucidated different opportunities stakeholders recognised in WR, such as its role in comforting families in stressful situations, and relationship building. Interviewees expressed their concerns about missing structures. Families pleaded for smaller WR teams and more layperson language. HCP underscored the lack of formal education on conducting WR. Paediatric patients stated that WR scared them without proper explanation. All interviewees emphasized the need for professionalization of the WR.

Conclusion

This study gives important insights into WR in paediatric oncology. Although performed universally, WRs are poorly explored. This structured analysis reveals important expectations of WR stakeholders, stressing the need for guidelines, training, and preparation for successful WRs.

Oncology

Ward round

paediatric oncology

Interviews

interdisciplinarity

The ward round (WR) is an essential part of daily hospital practice where the multidisciplinary team exchanges information and discusses further care planning [1]. Contemporarily, WR do not only take place in a conference room, but also at the patient’s bedside, giving patients the opportunity to ask questions and take an active role [2]. Recent research shows that besides timing and location, teamwork and communication are also of great importance for a successful WR [3].

In paediatric oncology, parents participate in the WR, which can increase the satisfaction of both the professional team and families [4] and shorten hospital stay [5]. While family-centred rounds have become standard practice on paediatric wards, they also require special communication skills [6]. Additionally, the seriousness of a cancer disease and the long-lasting therapy process place significant emotional stress on families, which always has to be considered during WR [7, 8].

Despite being a core routine in every hospital ward, there is no agreed definition of a WR [9]. In the busy day-to-day work of nurses and doctors, the WR becomes an increasingly neglected element of their routine [10]. It also rarely appears in textbooks and is not systematically taught at university [11]. Young healthcare workers learn to conduct a WR ‘on the job’, without any scientifically proven recommendations or standardised feedback procedures [12]. There is a fair amount of research on certain WR aspects, like time or location, but information about participants’ attitudes and personal experiences with WR are still lacking.

Purpose

To understand what WR means to different stakeholders of a paediatric oncology round, we conducted semi-structured interviews with doctors, nurses, patients, and parents. We intended to capture experiences and perceptions made by different participants and understand their expectations and requirements towards the WR.

Thus, we aimed to create a basis for multidisciplinary accepted and scientifically supported recommendations.

For this study, face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted from January 2018 until August 2019. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a qualitative descriptive method (Colaizzi [16]; Fig. 1), in order to gain a deeper understanding of the lived experience of individuals [13]. Participants were not restricted in their input to ensure that important aspects were not missed [14].

Ethics committee approval was obtained from Hannover Medical School prior to recruitment (No. 7700, 05.03.2018). Inclusion criteria were: sufficient speech comprehension; participation in > 10 WR as a nurse/doctor/parent/patient; age 11–18 (patients); inclusion of further interviewees until theoretical saturation [15]; written consent for participation. An overview of respondents is provided in Table 1.

Table 1

Overview of all interviewees. F = Female, M = Male, AML = Acute myeloid leukemia, ALL = Acute lymphoid leukemia
Interview	Group	Sex	Age (years)	Duration (min)	Work experience (years)	Patient’s disease
A	Nurse	M	23	27:55	1	-
B	Nurse	F	54	30:34	31	-
C	Parent	F	44	31:14	-	Daughter: ALL
D	Parent	M	41	40:41	-	Daughter: AML
E	Doctor	F	28	26:09	3	-
F	Doctor	F	32	22:02	5,5	-
G	Patient	M	15	07:03	-	ALL
H	Doctor	M	28	14:07	2,5	-
I	Patient	F	17	12:25	-	Lymphoma
J	Nurse	F	31	25:13	11	-
K	Patient	F	18	32:29	-	AML
L	Parent	M	28	22:59	-	Son: AML
M	Patient	M	11	10:15	-	Medulloblastoma

Interviews started with a uniform beginning (“As a [nurse/doctor/parent/patient] you have already experienced several WR. In your own words, what is the meaning of the WR for you?”). For comparability, a structured part using an interview guide followed (Fig. 2). The interview guide was developed beforehand, based on literature research, and discussed by two researchers (LB, LG) until consensus.

Each interview was analysed using the phenomenological framework by Colaizzi with respect to phenomena experienced during WR. This rigorous method is broadly accepted as an efficient tool to extract relevant information from interviews or written text [16] and follows seven defined steps (see Fig. 1): 1. Each interview transcript was read repeatedly. 2. Significant statements were extracted and collected in a separate analysing table. 3. Statements were then rephrased into formulated meanings and 4. organised into clusters of major themes (MT). 5. Within these MT, formulated meanings were sorted into categories and subcategories. 6. For each interview all formulated meanings within the categories were condensed into an essential structure. 7. Essential structures from all interviews were put together into a table to enable comparison between different interviews. Table 3 shows an example of the analysis process.

Table 3: Example of the analysing progress from interview D (Father). Answer to the question: “Could you explain a bit more detailed, why you restrained yourself during ward round?”

Analysis was done by two authors (LB, LG) and validated by team discussions until reaching consensus and confirmability.

A total of 13 respondents were recruited: 3 doctors; 3 nurses; 3 parents; and 4 patients. Interviews had a total duration of 5 hours and 3 minutes with an average duration of 22 minutes 46 seconds per interview. Patients were between 11 and 18 years old, health care professionals (HCP) had between 1 and 31 years of work experience.

Four major themes with a total of 30 corresponding categories emerged (Table 2):

Aims and functions of a ward round
Structure and organisational requirements
Ward round participants and interpersonal communication
Importance of education about WR

Table 2

The four major themes and categories emerged in the analysing process, *Number of interviews, the category appeared in out of 13 interviews
Aims and functions of the ward round	*	Structure and organisational requirements	*
Exchange of information	11	Preparation	10
Brainstorming, joined thinking, creation of solutions	8	Systematic and structure	12
Making multidisciplinary agreements	8	Focus and concentration	6
WR as a paediatric consultation	9	Freedom from interruption	5
Discussion of the future	7	The right place	4
Control and revision of current status	4	A respectful working atmosphere	6
Structuring the day	5	Staff competencies	5
Emotional support	12	Time taking	7
Opportunity for families to ask questions	5
Explaining medical facts and knowledge	5	Participants and interpersonal communication	*
Explaining medical facts and knowledge	5	Multidisciplinary as a chance	8
		Teamwork as a challenge	6
Importance of education about WR	*	Communication on eye-level	8
How is the WR taught?	4	Team makeup	8
How do participants learn about WR?	6	The right team size	5
WR as a learning process	9	Responsibility and job of nursing staff	5
		Participation of nurses at the bedside WR	5
		Families in the WR	5

Table 4

10 Recommendations for better ward rounds derived from the material
Ten ‚Golden Rules’ for a successful WR
Recommendation No.	Category	Recommendation
1	Prepare the ward round	What documents do you need? Patient file available? Note down already known questions about the patient. Are there any known concerns of the patient?
2	Create a safe communication space	Introduce everyone involved to reduce anxiety. Encourage all participants to take an active part in the conversation. Make sure, everyone feels comfortable to ask questions or raise concerns.
3	Break the ice sensibly	Focus the attention on the patient and his/her questions. Introduce yourself. Then start the visit with a proactive question about the patient's concerns. "How are you doing?" is the traditional way to open the dialogue; maybe a variation makes sense or you try to find YOUR opening ritual. "What questions do you have right now?", "What has changed for you?"
4	Collect information	Ask specifically about current complaints and gather information for your next steps. Be specific, for example, use a pain scale. Examine the patient specifically.
5	Deliver information	Convey important information. Prioritise it. Neither you nor the patient can remember countless pieces of information. Clearly state: "The three most important things to me are ..."
6	Secure understanding	Ensure understanding with targeted questions or have the most important repeated from the patient's point of view. "Can you repeat it in your own words? Then I'm sure I've explained it sufficiently." You may also paraphrase your patients words.
7	Focus on the needs of the family	Clarify unanswered questions from the patient and family.
8	Use the power of the team	Invite your team members to ask their own questions or share observations. "Are there any open points and questions?"
9	Plan next steps	Discuss with the family the next steps that need to be taken. In terms of content, timing and reason.
10	Date reliably	Will you come again today? When can you expect the results of the examination? How should the patient behave if questions arise later? Ask the patient to possibly create a collection of questions for the next visit.

All major themes (MT) and their categories are displayed in Table 2.

Aims and Functions of a Ward Round

Interviewees from all four groups (11 out of 13, Table 2) named “The exchange of information” as one important function of WR, including the discussion within the professional team and between HCP and families. They stated, by this all participants were brought to the same level of knowledge. Exchanging knowledge initiated thinking processes and created the basis for cooperative problem solving. It also served to control current health status, revise therapy plans, and reveal potential errors before they happen (critical incidents). Information exchange during WR had different meanings to different groups. One doctor said: “The ward round team has to manage the balancing act between: We have to get the ward round done quickly and somehow just communicate medical knowledge, while always keeping in mind what the things we say actually mean to the families” (Interview F). Parents mentioned they found it difficult to ask questions, because they feared the meaning of the delivered information.

The category “Emotional support” was mentioned in 12 of 13 interviews, thus most frequently within this MT. Parents explained, WR helped them to cope. Knowing their children were looked after comforted them. One parent said: “Because you have to face this situation. You can’t just talk it away and say: it will be fine and resolve itself […] and the ward round can support you doing that by saying: This is reality now and we do our best so that everything will be fine again” (Interview D). Patients underlined that the WR made them feel valued and looked after as someone came to talk to them. This is illustrated by a quote from a patient’s interview: “It’s just nice that you are still seen by the doctors, just so they can ask you: How are you? Are you okay?” (Interview I). HCP felt more secure with regard to solving problems by sharing responsibility with their colleagues.

Nurses (3/3) and Patients (2/4) brought up the WR role in building relationship and trust. Creating a bond between HCP and patients made the therapy process more personal. Patients emphasized the importance of getting to know the doctor’s character. It helped them understand the doctor’s decision-making process. A patient explained: “As a patient, you don’t have too many points of contact with the doctors. But you nevertheless still allow them to take control over your therapy and everything else. So, you put a lot of trust in them without knowing who the person is. Who is the person that makes those decisions for me that I can’t make myself?” (Interview K).

Structure and organisational requirements

Two categories named by all of the four interview groups were: “Preparation of WR” and “Clear Structure of WR”.

All interviewees wanted their co-participants to be well prepared before WR. Also, HCP expected their colleagues to have all documents and records available. Important information should be easily accessible and prepared beforehand.

12 out of 13 interviewees criticized that WR proceeded unstructured, therefore “you sometimes don’t notice certain things, you just jump to the obviously pathological results […] and then sometimes you overlook things”, as a doctor explained (Interview E). Not having a defined structure was also recognised as time-consuming. Some interviewees suggested that a standardised guideline could help by defining the order of topics and prioritising them.

Interviewees named a “respectful working atmosphere” as one requirement for a ‘good’ WR. They wanted WR participants to be appreciative, listen to each other, and accept people’s opinions. Every member of the WR team, including families, should feel they are allowed to tell their opinion openly and honestly. Families emphasised they always sensed if the healthcare staff worked as a team or not. A team working together made patients and parents feel more secure.

‘Time’ was a controversial topic in the interviews. While parents and patients felt that WR was too short, doctors always talked about time pressure. They expressed the wish that WR should be effective and less time consuming. Interviewees from the professional team nevertheless said that it was important planning enough time to be able to answer all questions and go into detail if necessary. For HCPs, it was most important to ensure having enough time to thoroughly consider choices and make well-thought-out decisions, as opposed to hasty ones, or even needing to postpone a relevant decision due to time pressure.

Ward round participants and interpersonal communication

Interviewees described both advantages and challenges of interprofessional teamwork in the WR. “Communication at eye-level” appeared in all interviews except for those with doctors: Parents and patients said they would have liked more layperson language, and that the healthcare team should better adjust communication to their emotional situation. One patient put special emphasis on non-verbal communication and sending signals. She described a situation experienced during WR: “To me, it looked like they were not sure what the results of the sample would be, or rather actually I already figured out that, when it takes so long to get the results, there’s a reason for that […]. The ward round team didn’t convey any particular uncertainty, I would say, they just said: ‘we have to examine that further’. But when you think about it […], you will quite easily come to the conclusion that something must be abnormal” (Interview K). As the patient’s illness was serious, they interpreted the missing information as a negative sign. Excluding or trivialising information sends signals to the patient, even if the doctor doesn’t intend to, which can plunge the patient into a negative spiral of worst-case-scenarios. Patients also emphasised that doctors communicated through actions and facial expressions, such as looking at the clock frequently or moving around nervously. Families got the impression that doctors had time pressure and did not dare to ask questions anymore. One patient said: “The doctors have to go through all the other rooms as well, […] I don’t want to delay someone like that, because I know, they need to go on” (Interview I).

Interviewees from all four groups would have liked the psychosocial team to attend the WR to support decision-making and take care of questions concerning psychosocial topics. Most interviewees preferred a smaller group of people. A resident said, large WR teams made the ward round become a “show event”, which she thought was “absurd” (Interview F). A patient said: “When the senior doctor conducts the ward round, it feels as if basically everyone attends. I think there's a difference between three people standing around your bed or five. You then feel like being under siege, when everyone is standing around looking at you.” (Interview I). Other interviewees said, large groups created a less intimate atmosphere and could not assure that everyone got the required personal attention. They made patients and parents feel uncomfortable about asking questions and stop them from talking about sensitive topics.

Importance of education about WR

All HCP stated they never learned how to conduct a WR in nursing school/ university. They learned what a WR is and what to do on the job by attending and then simply copying what more experienced colleagues were doing.

Interviewees from all four groups described how their opinions and skills changed over time, and how that changed the WR. Professionals said they gained experience, which boosted their self-confidence so that they participated more actively in WR and expressed their opinion more openly. Parents underlined that initially they did not dare to criticise medical staff during WR. They only received information, but never communicated their own opinion. Gaining more knowledge on the illness, they became more critical and questioned decisions. Additionally, parents asked for a guideline to make the WR more transparent in the beginning of the treatment. A mother said: “I would like to have an information leaflet for families about the ward round before the first stay in hospital. That information could explain: what is the ward round, what parts does it consist of? And what should it clarify?” (Interview C). At first, parents often didn’t understand the purpose of WR and if they were allowed to ask questions.

When patients started their treatment, the WR scared them as something special and alarming. One patient explained: “In the beginning, you are rather intimidated when so many experts come into the bedroom” (Interview K). Another patient added: “In the beginning it’s always like, […] really terrifying anxieties: ‘Oh my god, the doctors are coming, something really important must be going on’. And then over time you simply learn: okay, they just want to look how you are and tell you the next steps and not tell you the next dreadful news” (Interview I). After attending a few rounds, they realised that WR were normal daily routine.

To the best of our knowledge this is the first study analysing the function of WR in paediatric oncology that considers all relevant stakeholders. Altogether we identified four MT, comprising a total of 30 categories. Respondents collectively stated that requirements for a successful WR were not yet standard practice and should be implemented in daily routine.

An essential finding was that 12 out of 13 interviewees defined “emotional support” as one of the main WR functions. It even appeared more often than “handing over information” (mentioned in 11 interviews). Research shows that parents are encouraged by seeing so many different people care for their children [17], and that including families in the discussion process during WR improves the satisfaction of parents and patients [4, 18, 19]. Additionally, collecting information comforts parents of children with cancer [20]. It is a coping mechanism helping people in stressful situations by reducing uncertainty and regaining a sense of control [21, 22]. A recent study exploring parents’ perceptions of ward rounds highlighted that parents highly value it primarily for the opportunity to collaborate with the clinical team and to ask questions [42].

In this study, only patients and nurses described the WR as an opportunity to build and strengthen relationships, while neither parents nor doctors mentioned this. Patients explained that knowing their doctors helped them understand decisions. Decision-making is a complex process and is influenced by personal attitudes, values and beliefs [23]. Understanding how decisions are made helps patients to accept and support the decision and improves their cooperation [24]. Another study showed that a good patient-doctor relationship could reduce the risk behaviour of adolescents with cancer [25]. The fact that this aspect was not mentioned by doctors in the present study suggests that they are not aware of this potential.

Research shows that errors in the treatment of hospitalised children lead to prolonged hospital stays and higher mortality [26, 27]. Sharma et al. [28] identified the WR as a potential source of errors: Bad communication can cause lost, misunderstood or unarticulated information. By contrast, good communication within the team and between doctors and patients can reduce errors [29]. Poor communication can be attributed to the use of medical jargon, apparent time constraints and the lack of empathic change of perspective [43]. Interviewees in our study underlined that they missed structure in verbal exchanges. Doctors raised concerns about potentially missing warning signs. As this is a uniform and global challenge, there are however first attempts to implement guidelines, which reduce error rates, and improve communication [28, 30].

Despite previous research suggesting open and honest communication with families, our study highlights that this is still lacking in practice [31, 32]. We see a need for more open communication, where everything is said explicitly so patients do not have to focus on non-verbal communication.

Our data shows that interviewees would prefer a member of the psychosocial team to attend the WR. In literature, the optimal team composition in WR is not yet defined and often varies [33]. Literature shows that multidisciplinary WR achieve greater patient involvement, improved teamwork and better consideration of patient’s needs than multidisciplinary team meetings [34]. In paediatric oncology, looking after families’ psychosocial concerns can prevent noncompliance [35]. Involving members of the psychosocial team in WR could therefore improve cancer treatment. However, when implementing multidisciplinary rounds, team size has to be considered as our data shows that most patients and parents would prefer smaller WR teams.

Finally, our results indicate that neither professional team members nor families felt well prepared for WR. International research has already revealed that this is not only a problem in Germany, but can be found globally. While communication skills become more important in university education programmes, the WR is not yet part of the curriculum [11]. Recently, research has explored new WR training programmes for healthcare staff [36, 37]. It is striking that many of these are designed for medical students only, despite scientific agreement on teamwork and communication being significant elements of WR [5]. Research shows that interprofessional learning can improve both [38].

Patients of this study unveiled that emotional preparation for WR was challenging. Originally, they were scared of WR, until they understood that it is a daily routine and nothing bad happens necessarily. This goes hand-in-hand with Berkwitt and Grossman’s findings [39], who observed that paediatric patients associate WR with negative feelings when starting treatment. It can therefore be assumed that healthcare staff could spare patients anxieties and insecurity by explaining the purpose of WR early-on, which is consistent with other studies [44].

Little is known about the relevance of different competences in specific disciplines. An interesting study compared relevant competences in surgery and psychiatry by interviewing ward staff and found, not surprisingly, that clinical skills were mentioned more often in surgical interviews, while nonverbal communication was described more often in psychiatric interviews [45]. However, the patients’ or the relatives’ perspectives were not considered. To ensure the best possible doctor-patient communication all relevant perspectives have to be included, as our study demonstrates and explores.

Our study has several strengths and limitations. The interviews provided a realistic understanding of the participant’s experiences and covered a wide range of aspects. However, a limitation inherent to qualitative research is that results cannot easily be generalised. Nevertheless, our data can serve as a base for further research with more respondents to reach greater generalisability.

Our data represents experiences from a single institution. Experiences of members of WR on other oncology wards may differ. However, our study focused on a multidisciplinary team, patients with severe illnesses and their families, emotional and stressful situations, and relationships between different WR members. These aspects can be found in other oncology wards accordingly. We therefore assume that our results have some sort of external validity.

As we could only include interviewees who were able to speak and understand German, our results cannot be generalised to foreign-language speakers and participants with a migratory background as their experience might be different. Language barriers are still a huge problem in healthcare [40]. Social, cultural and religious differences are additional obstacles in the treatment of paediatric patients [41]. As the WR is the central place of communication, these aspects should be examined in future research.

Lastly, we included only a limited number of interviewees. Nevertheless, within this small cohort, maximum diversity was attempted to achieve representation of all major groups participating in WR, work-experience from 1 to 31 years, different genders and age variation. We stopped the recruitment of participants when we reached a theoretical saturation [15].

The amount of literature regarding WR in paediatric oncology is limited, and, to our knowledge, does not cover comparing experiences of all stakeholders. Thus, this study adds substantially to the small but growing body of literature regarding WR in general and in paediatric oncology in particular.

Our research shows that for stakeholders in in-patient paediatric cancer care, WRs have several important functions, aims and potentials. In accordance with recent research attempting to define a ‘good’ WR, our results highlight the need for improvement. Especially in terms of relationship building, emotional support and communication, the potential of WR is not yet fully explored. Additionally, WR require guidelines to prevent errors and help the team structure discussions. Lastly, families and carers should be prepared before their first WR. The data from this study can be used to develop a successful WR training for nurses and doctors. It also gives an understanding of what a ‘good’ WR needs in order to meet the expectations of all stakeholders and to improve the quality of cancer care.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all interviewees for their willingness to dedicate their time and contribute their insights to this project.

Funding: not applicable

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests: There are no conflicts of interest to declare

Ethics approval: The study was approved by local ethics

Consent to participate: All participants gave written consent before participating in interviews

Consent for publication: All authors and participants gave written consent for publication

Availability of data and material: All data are available on request

Code availability not applicable

Authors' contributions LB and LG conceptualized and conducted the study. All authors analysed data and participated in writing and revision of the manuscript

Kirthi V et al (2012) Ward rounds in medicine: Principles for best practice. IOP RCP of London. https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/ward-rounds-medicine-principles-best-practice Accessed 01 November 2020
Mittal V et al (2010) Family-centered rounds on pediatric wards: A PRIS network survey of US and Canadian hospitalists. Pediatrics 126:37–43
O’Hare JA (2007) Anatomy of the ward round. Eur J Intern Med 19:309–313
Aronson PL, Yau J, Helfaer MA, Morrison W (2009) Impact of family presence during pediatric intensive care unit rounds on the family and medical team. Pediatrics 124:1119–1125
Mittal V et al (2013) Pediatrics Residents’ Perspectives on Family-Centered Rounds: A Qualitative Study at 2 Children’s Hospitals. J Grad Med Educ 5:81–87
Latta LC, Dick R, Parry C, Tamura GS (2008) Parental responses to involvement in rounds on a pediatric inpatient unit at a teaching hospital: A qualitative study. Acad Med 83:292–297
Hovén E, Grönqvist H, Pöder U, von Essen L, Lindahl Norberg A (2017) Impact of a child’s cancer disease on parents’ everyday life: a longitudinal study from Sweden. Acta Oncol 56:93–100
Boles J, Daniels S (2019) Researching the Experiences of Children with Cancer: Considerations for Practice. Children 6:93
Sisterhen LL, Blaszak RT, Woods MB, Smith CE (2007) Defining family-centered rounds. Teach Learn Med 19:319–322
Shankar PS (2013) Ward Rounds in Medicine. RGUHS J Med Sci 3:135–137
Powell N, Bruce CG, Redfern O (2015) Teaching a ‘good’ ward round. Clin Med J R Coll Physicians London 15:135–138
Mansell A, Uttley J, Player P, Nolan O, Jackson S (2012) Is the post-take ward round standardised? Clin Teach 9:334–337
Giacomini MK, Cook DJ (2000) Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? J Am Med Assoc 284:357–362
Flick U (1991) Stationen des qualitativen Forschungsprozesses. In: Flick U, von Kardoff E, Keupp H, von Rosenstiel L, Wolff S (eds) Handbuch Qualitative Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Konzepte, Methoden und Anwendungen. Eds. Beltz. Psychologie Verlags Union, Munich, pp 147–173
Przyborski A, Wohlrab-Sahr M (2014) Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, Munich
Colaizzi PF (1978) Psychological Research as the Phenomenologists view it. Existent Altern Psychol 48–71
Birtwistle L, Houghton JM, Rostill H (2000) A review of a surgical ward round in a large paediatric hospital: Does it achieve its aims? Med Educ 34:398–403
Knoderer HM (2009) Inclusion of Parents in Pediatric Subspecialty Team Rounds: Attitudes of the Family and Medical Team. Acad Med 84:1576–1581
Rappaport DI, Ketterer T, Nilforoshan V, Sharif I (2012) Family-centered rounds: Views of families, nurses, trainees, and attending physicians. Clin Pediatr 51:260–266
Mack JM, Wolfe J, Grier HE, Cleary PD, Weeks JC (2006) Communication about prognosis between parents and physicians of children with cancer: Parent preferences and the impact of prognostic information. J Clin Oncol 24:5265–5270
Eheman C et al (2009) Information-seeking styles among cancer patients before and after treatment by demographics and use of information sources. J Heal Commun 14:487–502
Lambert S, Loiselle C, Macdonald ME (2009) An In-depth Exploration of Information-Seeking Behavior Among Individuals With Cancer: Part 1: Understanding Differential Patterns of Active Information Seeking. Cancer Nurs 32:11–23
Smith M, Higgs J, Ellis E (2008) Factors influencing clinical decision. In: Higgs J, Jensen G, Loftus S, Christensen N (eds) Clinical in the health professions. Elsevier, Munich, pp 89–100
Coyne I, Amory A, Kiernan G, Gibson F (2014) Children’s participation in shared decision-making: Children, adolescents, parents and healthcare professionals’ perspectives and experiences. Eur J Oncol Nurs 18:273–280
Phillips CR, Haase JE, Broome ME, Carpenter JS, Frankel RM (2017) Connecting with healthcare providers at diagnosis: Adolescent/young adult cancer survivors’ perspectives. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2017.1325699
Woods D, Thomas E, Holl J, Altman S, Brennan T (2005) Adverse events and preventable adverse events in children. Pediatrics 115:155–160
Slonim AD, LaFleur BJ, Ahmed W, Joseph JG (2003) Hospital-reported medical errors in children. Pediatrics 111:617–621
Sharma S et al (2013) ‘Safety by DEFAULT’: Introduction and impact of a paediatric ward round checklist. Crit Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13055
Stebbing C, Wong ICK, Kaushal R, Jaffe A (2007) The role of communication in paediatric drug safety. Arch Dis Child 92:440–445
Cox ED et al (2017) A family-centered rounds checklist, family engagement, and patient safety: A randomized trial. Pediatrics https:/doi. org/10.1542/peds.2016-1688
DeLemos D et al (2010) Building trust through communication in the intensive care unit: HICCC. Pediatr. Crit Care Med 11:378–384
Zwaanswijk M, Tates K, van Dulmen S, Hoogerbrugge PM, Kamps WA, Bensing JM (2007) Young patients’, parents’, and survivors’ communication preferences in paediatric oncology: Results of online focus groups. BMC Pediatr 7:1–10
Walton V, Hogden A, Johnson J, Greenfield D (2016) Ward rounds, participants, roles and perceptions: literature review. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 29:364–379
Monaghan J, Channell K, McDowell D, Sharma AK (2005) Improving patient and carer communication, multidisciplinary team working and goal-setting in stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 19:194–199
Spinetta JJ et al (2002) Refusal, non-compliance, and abandonment of treatment in children and adolescents with cancer: A report of the SIOP Working Committee on Phychosocial Issues in Pediatric Oncology. Med Pediatr Oncol 38:114–117
Harvey R, Mellanby E, Dearden E, Medjoub K, Edgar S (2015) Developing non – technical ward- round skills. Clin Teach 12:336–340
Thomas I (2015) Student views of stressful simulated ward rounds. Clin Teach 12:346–352
Giguere A et al (2013) Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:4
Berkwitt A, Grossman M (2015) A Qualitative Analysis of Pediatric Patient Attitudes Regarding Family-Centered Rounds. Hosp Pediatr 5:357–362
Jacobs E, Chen AH, Karliner LS, Agger-Gupta N, Mutha S (2006) The need for more research on language barriers in health care: A proposed research agenda. Milbank Q 84:111–133
Pergert P, Ekblad S, Enskär K, Björk O (2007) Obstacles to transcultural caring relationships: Experiences of health care staff in pediatric oncology. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 24:314–328
Barrington J, Polley C, von Heerden C, Gray A (2021) Descriptive study of parents’ perceptions of paediatric ward rounds. Arch Dis Child
Reddin G, Davis N F, Mc Donald K (2019) Ward stories: lessons learned from patient perception of the ward round. Ir J Med Sci 188:1119–1128
Walton V, Hogden A, Long JC, Johnson JK, Greenfield D (2019) Patients, health professionals, and the health system: influencers on patients' participation in ward rounds. Patient Preference Adherence 13:1415–1429
Vietz E, März E, Lottspeich C, Wölfel T, Fischer M, Schmidmaier R (2019) Ward round competences in surgery and psychiatry - a comparative multidisciplinary interview study. BMC Med Educ 19:137

Understanding Different Functions of Ward Rounds In Paediatric Oncology: A Qualitative Study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Aims and Functions of a Ward Round

Structure and organisational requirements

Ward round participants and interpersonal communication

Importance of education about WR

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1