Braide M (2013) The effect of intentional rounding on essential care. Nursing Times; 109: 20, 16-18
Snelling P (2013) Intentional rounding: a critique of the evidence. Nursing Times; 109: 20, 19-21
‘Intentional rounding’, the practice of performing regular, set checks on patients regardless of clinical need, has been heavily promoted by David Cameron and NHS leaders and has been introduced in many hospitals.This week we’ve published articles arguing both for and against intentional rounding.
Braide M: “Intentional rounding is a structured approach to the delivery of fundamental care. It is widely recognised to benefit patients and endorsed by prime minister David Cameron as giving nurses “time to care”. Increased scrutiny of NHS care as a result of the Francis report, and the financial pressures caused by the requirement for the NHS to save £20bn by 2015 mean the need to evaluate how we coordinate and improve care has never been greater.”
Snelling P: “Intentional rounding has been heavily promoted by the prime minister David Cameron and others and is being widely implemented in UK hospitals. It is claimed that the practice has a number of benefits, including reduction in call bell use, falls and pressure ulcers and increased satisfaction. In this article, I will submit these claims to close scrutiny and argue that the evidence base is too flimsy to support the claims.
“Individual nurses and nurse managers should look more to evidence than to political expedience when implementing nursing policies.”
What do you think?
- Does intentional rounding improve patient outcomes?
- Is the evidence-base sound enough to support wide-spread use of intentional rounding?
- Does this policy hinder nurses’ ability to make judgements of appropriate levels of observations?
- What has been your experience of intentional rounding?