Bakgrund: Patientdelaktighet är ett koncept som myntades i vårdlitteraturen under 1960-talet. Detta är en betydande faktor i en av sjuksköterskans kärnkompetenser: personcentrerad vård. Ett arbetssätt som inom aktuell forskning har argumenteras eventuellt kunna främja detta är ronder vid sängkanten. En annan fördel som framkommit i tidigare forskning är den positiva effekten på det interprofessionella samarbetet. Det har dock framkommit en del hinder med denna typ av rond, och forskning inom ämnet är otillräcklig. Syfte: Syftet med denna studie var att undersöka patienters uppfattningar om ronder som utfördes vid sängkanten. Metod: En allmän litteraturöversikt användes som studiedesign. Översikten innefattade tio originalartiklar, RCT (randomiserade kontrollerade studier) och artiklar av kvasiexperimentell design. Sökningen genomfördes i databaserna Pubmed, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, SveMed+ och Statens beredning för medicinsk och social utvärdering [SBU]. Valda artiklar kvalitétsgranskades med mallar som modifierades för detta arbete. Resultat: Patienterna rapporterade ett gott bemötande, en hög nivå av delaktighet i vården, ett gott samarbete mellan vårdpersonalen, kommunikationen som god, en god förståelse om sin hälsa och vården, god tilltro till vårdpersonalen och en hög generell tillfredsställelse. Slutsatser kunde inte dras gällande uppfattningen om avskildhet. Slutsats: Patienterna hade i regel positiva uppfattningar av ronder utförda vid sängkanten. Då vissa negativa uppfattningar dock rapporterats krävs ytterligare forskning för att implementering av bedside-ronder i vården skall vara etiskt och vetenskapligt motiverat. / Background: Patient participation is a relatively new concept established during the 1960s. This is an important component in nursing that plays a pivotal role in one of the nursing core competence descriptions: patient-centered care. It has been indicated by research that bedside rounds may have a positive effect in promoting patient centered care. Another benefit that has been introduced in previous research is a positive effect on interprofessional teamwork. Despite this there are some perceived barriers that have emerged regarding bedside-rounds, therefore research in this topic is insufficient. Aim: The purpose of this study was to explore patients perceptions of bedside rounds. Method: The study design used was a literature review, comprised of ten original articles. The articles included in this study were either randomized controlled trials or of a quasi experimental design. The search was conducted with the means of Pubmed, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, SveMed+ and SBU (Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services). The articles included in the study were then reviewed for their quality using guides that were modified for this study. Result: The patients experienced a good reception from health personnel, a high level of involvement in care, good teamwork between the health personnel, good communication, a good understanding of their health, high levels of trust in the health personnel and a high general satisfaction. No conclusions could be drawn regarding experienced integrity. Conclusion: In general, the patients had a positive perception of bedside-rounds. Despite this some negative perceptions were also reported. This indicates that there is a need for further scientific and ethical research to provide sufficient proof that bedside-rounds should be implemented in healthcare.

The hospitalization of a family member in an intensive care unit can be a very stressful time for the family. Family bedside rounds is one way for the care team to inform family members, answer questions, and involve them in care decisions. Few studies have examined the experiences of family members with ICU bedside rounds. A qualitative descriptive study, undergirded by the Family Management Style Framework developed by Knafl and Deatrick (1990, 2003) and Knafl, Deatrick, and Havill (2012), was done at an academic medical center examining families who both participated and did not participate in the family bedside rounds. The majority of families who participated (80%) found the process helpful. One overarching theme emerged from the data of participating families: Making a Connection: Comfort and Confidence. Two major factors influenced how that connection was made: consistency and preparing families for the future. Three types of consistency were identified: consistency with information being shared, consistency about when rounds were being held, and consistency with being informed of delays. The second major contributing factor was preparing families for the future. When a connection was present, families felt comfortable with the situation. When any of the factors were missing, families described feelings of anger, frustration, and fear. Family members who did not participate described feelings of disappointment and frustration about not having participated. As healthcare providers, what we say to families matters. They need to be included in decision-making with honest, consistent, easy-to-understand information.