Cited by 125Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcarePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Parental Responses to Involvement in Rounds on a Pediatric Inpatient Unit at a Teaching Hospital: A Qualitative Study

Latta, Linda C., Dick, Ronald, Parry, Carol, Tamura, Glen S.·2008·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: In pediatric teaching hospitals, medical decisions are traditionally made by the attending and resident physicians during rounds that do not include parents. This structure limits the ability of the medical team to provide "family-centered care" and the attending physician to model communication skills. The authors thus set out to identify how parents responded to participation in interdisciplinary teaching rounds conducted in a large tertiary care children's teaching hospital. METHOD: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using data from semistructured interviews of parents who had participated in rounds on the inpatient medical unit of a large academic children's hospital. From December 2004 to April 2005, 18 parents were interviewed after their participation in rounds. Questions assessed their experiences, expectations, preferred communication styles, and suggestions for improvement. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Being able to communicate, understand the plan, and participate with the team in decision making about their child's care were the most frequently cited outcomes of importance to parents. All 18 participants described the overall experience as positive, and 17 of 18 described themselves as "comfortable" with inclusion in rounds. Use of lay terminology and inclusion of nurses in rounds were preferred. CONCLUSIONS: Including parents on ward rounds at a teaching hospital was viewed positively by parents. Specific themes of particular importance to parents were identified. Further study is needed to assess the impact of inclusion of parents on rounds on patient outcomes and the resident experience.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e3181637e21

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Latta, L. C., Dick, R., Parry, C., & Tamura, G. S.
Affiliations
Seattle Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Tamura, Glen S.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2008-03
Volume
83
Issue
3
Pages
292-297
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006779258
Cited by
125
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
15.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
family-centered care, pediatric inpatient care, parent-physician communication, shared decision-making, lay language, pediatric residents, teaching hospitals
MeSH terms
Communication, Decision Making, Hospitals, Pediatric, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Inpatients, Parents, Personal Satisfaction, Physician-Patient Relations, Professional-Family Relations, Washington, Patient-Centered Care, Qualitative Research

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