Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Interventions to promote collaboration between nurses and doctors

Zwarenstein, Merrick, Bryant, Wendy·2000·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lack of nurse-doctor collaboration contributes to problems in quality and efficiency of patient care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve nurse-doctor collaboration. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register and database of studies awaiting assessment, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, MEDLINE, and reference lists of articles up to the end of October 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series of interventions to improve collaboration between nursing and medical professionals sharing patient care in primary or hospital care settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies; a second reviewer undertook duplicate assessments on the eligibility of some articles and data abstraction on all included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials involving 1945 people were included. One six month trial involving 1102 admissions evaluated daily, structured, team ward rounds, in which nurses, doctors and other professionals made care decisions jointly. There was shortened average length of hospital stay (LOS) from 6.06 to 5.46 days, and reduced hospital charges from US$ 8090 to 6681. There were no differences in mortality rates or the type of care to which patients were discharged. Another three month trial involving 843 admissions compared two female wards and evaluated a four times per week round. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control wards in total average length of stay for all patients (11.7 days in intervention ward versus 11.6 in the control ward). Excluding patients who died in hospital revealed shortened length of stay in the intervention ward (intervention ward 10.5 days, control ward 11.9). Mortality rates were not significantly different. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Increasing collaboration improved outcomes of importance to patients and to health care managers. These gains were moderate and affected health care processes rather than outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these findings. The logistic challenge presented by the complexity of the interventions and the need for large sample sizes due to the likely modest impact and rarity of outcome events may best be met by multi-centre studies. Before launching such studies qualitative research is needed to identify barriers to collaboration. Interventions other than nurse-doctor ward rounds and team meetings should also be tested.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd000072

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Zwarenstein, M., & Bryant, W.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2000-04-24
Issue
2
Pages
CD000072-CD000072
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1659136013
Cited by
195
References
0
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interventions to promote collaboration between nurses and doctors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd000072
The paper
Zwarenstein, M., & Bryant, W. (2000). Interventions to promote collaboration between nurses and doctors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000072

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.