Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11054/1903
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorPerversi, Paulen_US
dc.contributorYearwood, Johnen_US
dc.contributorBellucci, Emiliaen_US
dc.contributorStranieri, Andrewen_US
dc.contributorWarren, Jimen_US
dc.contributorBurstein, Fradaen_US
dc.contributorMays, Heatheren_US
dc.contributorWolff, Alanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-14T23:39:59Z-
dc.date.available2022-02-14T23:39:59Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.govdoc01804en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11054/1903-
dc.descriptionWimmera Health Care Groupen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Ward rounds are an important and ubiquitous element of hospital care with a history extending well over a century. Although originally intended as a means of educating medical trainees and junior doctors, over time they have become focused on supporting clinical practice. Surprisingly, given their ubiquity and importance, they are under-researched and inadequately understood. This study aims to contribute knowledge in human reasoning within medical teams, meeting a pressing need for research concerning the reasoning occurring in rounds. Methods: The research reported here aimed to improve the understanding of ward round reasoning by conducting a critical realist case study exploring the collaborative group reasoning mechanisms in the ward rounds of two hospitals in Victoria, Australia. The data collection involved observing rounds, interviewing medical practitioners and holding focus group meetings. Results: Nine group reasoning mechanisms concerning sharing, agreeing and recording information in the categories of information accumulation, sense-making and decision-making were identified, together forming a program theory of ward round reasoning. In addition, themes spanning across mechanisms were identified, further explaining ward round reasoning and suggesting avenues for future exploration. Themes included the use of various criteria, tensions involving mechanisms, time factors, medical roles and hierarchies. Conclusions: This paper contributes to the literature by representing rounds in a manner that strengthens understanding of the form of the group reasoning occurring within, thus supporting theory-based evaluation strategies, redesigned practices and training enhancements.en_US
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2021-12-15T04:03:18Z No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceApproved for entry into archive by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2022-02-14T23:39:58Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2022-02-14T23:39:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018en
dc.titleExploring reasoning mechanisms in ward rounds: a critical realist multiple case study.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.specifiedArticleen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleBMC Health Services Researchen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume18en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue1en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.stpage643en_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusCASE STUDYen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusCASUAL MECHANISMSen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusDECISION-MAKINGen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusMEDICAL REASONINGen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusPROGRAM THEORYen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusSENSE-MAKINGen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusTEAMWORKen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusWARD ROUNDSen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3446-6.en_US
Appears in Collections:Research Output

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.