Over the last century, attending rounds have shifted away from the bedside. Despite evidence for greater patient satisfaction rates and improved nursing perception of teamwork with bedside presentations, residents and attending physicians are apprehensive of the bedside approach. There is lack of data to guide rounding practices within neurology, and therefore, optimal rounding methods remain unclear. The objective of this study was to compare bedside rounding with hallway rounding on an academic neurology inpatient service and assess efficiency, trainee education, and satisfaction among patients and staff. We conducted a single-center prospective randomized study of bedside vs hallway rounding on new inpatient neurology admissions over 1-week blocks. The bedside team presented patients at the bedside, whereas the hallway team presented patients outside of the patient’s room. We evaluated the 2 approaches with time-motion analysis, which investigated the rounding style’s effect on composition and timing of rounds (primary outcome) and surveys of patients, nurses, residents, and attending physicians on both teams (secondary outcomes). The mean rounding time per newly admitted patient in the bedside group (n = 38 patients) and hallway group (n = 41 patients) was 23 minutes and 23.2 minutes, respectively (p = 0.93). The bedside group spent on average 56.4% of patient rounding time in the patient’s room, whereas the hallway group spent 39.5% of rounding time in the patient’s room (p = 0.036). Residents perceived hallway rounding to be more efficient and associated it with a superior educational experience and more effective data review. Nurses had improved perception of their participation in bedside rounds. Although patients’ views of bedside and hallway rounds were similar, patients who had experienced bedside rounds preferred it. In conclusion, bedside rounding was perceived less favorably by most residents but was as efficient as hallway rounding. Although bedside rounding limited the use of technology for data review, it promoted nursing participation and resulted in more time spent with the patient.
Clinical Trial Registration Number
Registered retrospectively per the editors’ suggestion (NCT04754828).