Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 194

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Firm Trial of Interdisciplinary Rounds on the Inpatient Medical Wards: An Intervention Designed Using Continuous Quality Improvement

Curley, Catherine, McEachern, J. Edward, Speroff, Theodore·1998·Medical Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In August 1993 a group of house staff and nursing staff at MetroHealth Medical Center formed a quality improvement team to evaluate the process of medical care on the inpatient wards. Using standard continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods, a team of medical interns, nurses, and other health professionals involved in patient care on the medicine inpatient service designed interdisciplinary, daily work rounds to improve the care of patients on the inpatient wards. METHODS: The authors conducted a randomized, controlled firm trial of the impact of interdisciplinary rounds on the inpatient medicine services. The trial lasted 6 months (November 1993-April 1994) and included 1,102 admissions randomly assigned to experimental or control teams by the pre-existing firm system. Of the 1,102 admissions included in the study, 535 were randomized to medical services with traditional rounds and 567 to medical services with interdisciplinary rounds. The outcomes studied included length of stay (LOS), total hospital charges, provider satisfaction, and ancillary service efficiency. RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis for log-transformed data showed lower length of stay and total charges for the interdisciplinary group. The mean LOS for interdisciplinary rounds was 5.46 days, compared with 6.06 days for traditional care (P = 0.006), whereas mean total charges were $6,681 and $8,090 (P = 0.002) for the two groups, respectively. After multivariate regression analysis using a propensity score that included gender, age, marital status, admission source, diagnosis-related group (DRG) weight, and primary diagnosis by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) cluster, these differences remained statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies of interdisciplinary teams have failed to show statistically significant cost savings. This study involving more patients shows both cost and LOS decreases with the use of interdisciplinary teams. At the end of the 6-month trial, interdisciplinary rounds were instituted on all medicine inpatient services.

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 · 10.1097/00005650-199808001-00002

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 194

Metadata

Authors
Curley, C., McEachern, J. E., & Speroff, T.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
1998-08
Volume
36
Issue
SUPPLEMENT
Pages
AS4-AS12
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052224775
Cited by
194
References
0
FWCI
17.69
Type
journal article
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: A Firm Trial of Interdisciplinary Rounds on the Inpatient Medical Wards: An Intervention Designed Using Continuous Quality Improvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00005650-199808001-00002
The paper
Curley, C., McEachern, J. E., & Speroff, T. (1998). A Firm Trial of Interdisciplinary Rounds on the Inpatient Medical Wards: An Intervention Designed Using Continuous Quality Improvement. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199808001-00002

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.