X hits on this document





4 / 6

Patient Service-Nursing / Patient Rounds / Structured Method of Sharing Information / BESt 060


Birtwistle, L., Houghton, J. M., & Rostill, H. (2000). A review of a surgical ward round in a large paediatric hospital: Does it achieve its aims? Medical Education, 34(5), 398-403. (4b)

Landry, M., Lafrenaye, S., Roy, M., & Cyr, C. (2007). A randomized, controlled trial of bedside versus conference-room case presentation in a pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatrics, 120(2), 275-280. (2a)

Latta, L. C., Dick, R., Parry, C., & Tamura, G. S. (2008). Parental responses to involvement in rounds on a pediatric inpatient unit at a teaching hospital: A qualitative study. Academic Medicine, 83(3), 292-297. (4b)

Maisels, M. J., & Kring, E. A. (2005). A simple approach to improving patient satisfaction. Clinical Pediatrics, 44(9), 797-800. (2a)

McGilton, K., Irwin-Robinson, H., Boscart, V., & Spanjevic, L. (2006). Communication enhancement: Nurse and patient satisfaction outcomes in a complex continuing care facility. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54(1), 35-44. (4a)

Rotman-Pikielny, P., Rabin, B., Amoyal, S., Mushkat, Y., Zissin, R., & Levy, Y. (2007). Participation of family members in ward rounds: Attitude of medical staff, patients and relatives. Patient Education & Counseling, 65(2), 166-170. (4b)

Scott, L. D. (1998). Perceived needs of parents of critically ill children. Journal of the Society of Pediatric Nurses, 3(1), 4-12. (4a)

Sobo, E. J. (2004). Pediatric nurses may misjudge parent communication preferences. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 19(3), 253-262. (5)

Teare, J., & Smith, J. (2004). Using focus groups to explore the views of parents whose children are in hospital. Paediatric Nursing, 16(5; 5), 30-34. (2b)

Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Gruber, K. (2004). Perceptions of health care providers' communication: Relationships between patient-centered communication and satisfaction. Health Communication, 16(3), 363-384. (4a)

Note: Full tables of evidence grading system available in separate document:

  • Table of Evidence Levels of Individual Studies by Domain, Study Design, & Quality (abbreviated table below)

  • Grading a Body of Evidence to Answer a Clinical Question

  • Judging the Strength of a Recommendation (abbreviated table below)

Table of Evidence Levels (see note above)

Quality lev 1a† or 1b†

2a or 2b 3a or 3b 4a or 4b



Definition Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta- synthesis of multiple studies Best study design for domain Fair study design for domain Weak study design for domain Other: General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline

  • a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study

Copyright © 2009 Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; all rights reserved.

Page 4 of 6

Document info
Document views18
Page views18
Page last viewedTue Oct 25 03:41:00 UTC 2016