An international perspective on the frequency, perception of utility, and quality of interprofessional rounds practices in intensive care units

Andre C.K.B. Amaral, Jean Louis Vincent, Louise Rose, Mark E. Mikkelsen, Steve Webb, Grazielle Viana Ramos, Ruxandra Pinto, Jorge Salluh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


Purpose: To describe international variation in interprofessional rounds in intensive care units (ICUs). Materials and methods: Survey of ICU clinicians on their practices and perceptions of rounds using societal mailing lists and social media. Results: Out of 2402 respondents, 1752 (72.8%) use rounds. Teams are mostly composed of intensivists, nurses and medical trainees. The majority of rounds (57.5%) last >2 h, and North Americans report the highest rates of rounds allowing family attendance (92.4%). Shorter rounds (1–2 h, OR 0.67, 0.52–0.86, p < 0.01; <1 h, OR 0.72, 0.53–0.97, p = 0.03), and strategies such as designating a person for writing (OR 0.73, 0.57–0.95, p = 0.01), and designating a person to assist other patients (OR 0.75, 0.57–0.98, p = 0.04) are associated with a lower perception of negative outcomes. Using daily goals during rounds is associated with a higher perception of positive outcomes (OR 1.85, 1.17–2.90, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Three-quarters of respondents perform rounds, and models of rounds are heterogeneous, creating challenges for future studies on improving rounds. Respondents reporting better outcomes also experience shorter rounds, and adopt strategies such as discussion of daily goals, and designation individuals for writing or assisting other patients during rounds.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)28-34
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Critical Care
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2020


  • Communication
  • Interprofessional rounds
  • Quality
  • Safety
  • Survey

Cite this