The aims of this study were to synthesize the evidence concerning the effect of hourly rounding programs on patient satisfaction with nursing care and discuss implications for nurse administrators.
Patient satisfaction is a key metric that influences both hospital ratings and reimbursement. Studies have suggested that purposeful nursing rounds can improve patient satisfaction, but the evidence to date has not been systematically examined.
A systematic review of published literature and GRADE analysis of evidence regarding nursing rounds were conducted.
There is little consistency in how results of hourly rounds were measured, precluding quantitative analysis. There is moderate-strength evidence that hourly rounding programs improve patients’ perception of nursing responsiveness. There is also moderate-strength evidence that these programs reduce patient falls and call light use.
Nurse administrators should consider implementing an hourly rounding program while controlled trials discern the most cost-effective approach.
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.
Author Affiliations: Senior Research Analyst (Dr Mitchell), Research Analyst (Dr Lavenberg), Nursing Liaison (Dr Trotta), Director (Dr Umscheid), Center for Evidence-based Practice, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia; Director of Nursing Research and Science (Dr Trotta), Assistant Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology (Dr Umscheid), Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Assistant Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology (Dr Umscheid), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Dr Umscheid’s contribution to this project was supported in part by the National Center for Research Resources, grant UL1RR024134, which is now at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, grant UL1TR000003. The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. For the remaining authors, no conflicts were declared.
Correspondence: Dr Mitchell, Center for Evidence-Based Practice, 3535 Market St, Ste 50, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.jonajournal.com).