Intentional rounding in hospital wards to improve regular interaction and engagement between nurses and patients: a realist evaluation

Harris, Ruth; Sims, Sarah; Leamy, Mary; Levenson, Ros; Davies, Nigel; Brearley, Sally; Grant, Robert; Gourlay, Stephen; Favato, Giampiero; Ross, Fiona

doi:10.3310/hsdr07350

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Extended Research Article

Toolkit

View Award

Evidence for the effectiveness of intentional rounding is weak, with concerns that it oversimplifies nursing, creates a prescriptive approach and prioritises the completion of documentation as evidence of care delivery.

Ruth Harris , Sarah Sims , Mary Leamy , Ros Levenson , Nigel Davies , Sally Brearley , Robert Grant , Stephen Gourlay , Giampiero Favato & Fiona Ross .

Detailed Author information
Detailed Author information

Ruth Harris ^1,^*, Sarah Sims ¹, Mary Leamy ¹, Ros Levenson ², Nigel Davies ³, Sally Brearley ⁴, Robert Grant ⁴, Stephen Gourlay ⁵, Giampiero Favato ⁵, Fiona Ross ⁴

¹ Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, London, UK
² Independent researcher, London, UK
³ School of Health, Sport and Bioscience, University of East London, London, UK
⁴ Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Kingston University and St George’s University of London, London, UK
⁵ Kingston Business School, Kingston University, London, UK
^* Corresponding author Email: ruth.harris@kcl.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Report Content

Full Report
Abstract
Plain English Summary
Plain Language Summary
Scientific Summary

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors. Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Enter response message*

Name (title, first name, last name)*

Occupation / Job title*

Affiliation / Employer*

Email*

Other authors
For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests
We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, please provide details below

Enter response title*

Enter CAPTCHA What is seven multiplied by three?*

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions