Wellness, PsychologicalNCT06336915
Physician-Nurse Dyad Rounding: A Collaborative Approach to Improve Unit-Level Metrics
An observational study of Wellness, Psychological, run by Methodist Health System at 2 sites in United States.
Trial summary
The project will be implemented on one unit at a time until the co-rounding process has been implemented on each Medical-Surgical unit. This study will involve the geo-localized hospitalist on the designated unit and the nursing staff involved in clinical patient care Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Wellness, Psychological
- What is being tested?
- Physician-Nurse Dyad Rounding
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- 300 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 3 Jan 2023to 22 Jul 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Private hospitalist patients at MDMC Patients with a LOS ≤20 days
Who may be able to join
- Patient Experience, LOS, and Discharge Times: Private hospitalist patients at MDMC
- LOS: Patients with a LOS ≤20 days
Who cannot join
- Patient Experience: Patients other than private hospitalist patients excluded from this measure.
- LOS: Patients with LOS >20 days are considered an outlier and will be excluded from the study
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
United States2 sites
Clinical Research Institute at Methodist Health System
Dallas, Texas, 75203
Methodist Dallas Medical Center
Dallas, Texas, 75203
About this study
The project will be implemented on one unit at a time until the co-rounding process has been implemented on each Medical-Surgical unit. This study will involve the geo-localized hospitalist on the designated unit and the nursing staff involved in clinical patient care
Read the detailed description
Patient experience top box scores as well as doctor and nurse domains will be evaluated retrospectively prior to project implementation and this evaluation will continue to be evaluated six months after IRB approval and project initiation. Baseline patient experience scores are routinely captured as a part of routine data collection practices via Press Ganey survey administration.
LOS and discharge times are also routinely collected as a part of routine data collection practices. LOS and average discharge times will be reviewed on an ongoing basis after project implementation to monitor for improvements.
- Conditions
- Wellness, Psychological
- Being tested
- Physician-Nurse Dyad Rounding
- Medical subject headings
- Psychological Well-Being
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Physician-Nurse Dyad RoundingBehavioural
Collaborative Approach to Improve Unit-Level Metrics
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Difference in percentage of discharged patients before 1400 (Mon-Fri) after project implementation compared to before implementation
Difference in percentage of discharged patients before 1400 (Mon-Fri) after project implementation compared to before implementation
Measured: "up to 100 weeks"
Secondary outcomes (3)
Difference in Top Box Patient Satisfaction Scores and Doctor Domain
Difference in top box patient satisfaction scores and doctor domain for private hospitalist patients after project implementation compared to before implementation
Measured: "up to 100 weeks"
Difference in LOS of private hospitalist patients after project implementation compared to before implementation
Difference in LOS of private hospitalist patients after project implementation compared to before implementation
Measured: "up to 100 weeks"
Difference in collaboration and build positive relationships scores after project implementation compared to before implementation
Difference in collaboration and build positive relationships scores after project implementation compared to before implementation
Measured: "up to 100 weeks"
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Mar 2024
- Study start3 Jan 2023
- Primary completion22 Jul 2025
- Study completion22 Jul 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Wellness, PsychologicalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Methodist Health System
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06336915
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 121.NUR.2022.D
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 30 Mar 2023
- Last updated
- 28 Jul 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Study data or any protected health information will not be shared with anyone that is not delegated to the study. The PI is committed to disseminate research results in a timely fashion. Sharing of results generated by the data analysis during the course of the project will be through presentation at national scientific meetings and/or publication in open access journals. All information obtained will be source de-identified and presented on a large scale and not traceable to any one particular individual
Publications
Pritts KE, Hiller LG. Implementation of Physician and Nurse Patient Rounding on a 42-Bed Medical Unit. Medsurg Nurs. 2014 Nov-Dec;23(6):408-13.
PubMed 26281644Shortell, S. (1989). ICU Nurse Questionnaire. Excerpted from The Organization and Management of Intensive Care Units. Copyright 1989, Shortell and Rousseau.
Rigel, N., Delp, S., Ward, C. (2018). Effects of Nurse-Physician Collaborative Rounding, MEDSURG Nursing, 27(3) 149-152.
Sturdivant, T., Herrin, K., Reynolds, M., Mestas, L. (2020). Improving Patient Satisfaction through a Nurse Leader-Physician Bedside Rounding Protocol: A Pilot Project, Nursing Econonmic$, 38(3).
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Physician-Nurse Dyad Rounding: A Collaborative Approach to Improve Unit-Level Metrics
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06336915
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 121.NUR.2022.D
- Conditions
- Wellness, Psychological
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Methodist Health SystemUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 3 Jan 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 22 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 22 Jul 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Mar 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The project will be implemented on one unit at a time until the co-rounding process has been implemented on each Medical-Surgical unit. This study will involve the geo-localized hospitalist on the designated unit and the nursing staff involved in clinical patient care
Detailed description
Patient experience top box scores as well as doctor and nurse domains will be evaluated retrospectively prior to project implementation and this evaluation will continue to be evaluated six months after IRB approval and project initiation. Baseline patient experience scores are routinely captured as a part of routine data collection practices via Press Ganey survey administration.
LOS and discharge times are also routinely collected as a part of routine data collection practices. LOS and average discharge times will be reviewed on an ongoing basis after project implementation to monitor for improvements.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Private hospitalist patients at MDMC Patients with a LOS ≤20 days
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patient Experience, LOS, and Discharge Times: Private hospitalist patients at MDMC
- LOS: Patients with a LOS ≤20 days
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patient Experience: Patients other than private hospitalist patients excluded from this measure.
- LOS: Patients with LOS >20 days are considered an outlier and will be excluded from the study
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Physician-Nurse Dyad RoundingCollaborative Approach to Improve Unit-Level Metrics | Behavioural | – |
Primary outcome
Difference in percentage of discharged patients before 1400 (Mon-Fri) after project implementation compared to before implementation
Time frame: "up to 100 weeks"
Difference in percentage of discharged patients before 1400 (Mon-Fri) after project implementation compared to before implementation
3 secondary outcomes
Difference in Top Box Patient Satisfaction Scores and Doctor Domain
Time frame: "up to 100 weeks"
Difference in LOS of private hospitalist patients after project implementation compared to before implementation
Time frame: "up to 100 weeks"
Difference in collaboration and build positive relationships scores after project implementation compared to before implementation
Time frame: "up to 100 weeks"
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Jul 2025.
- Results publication: PubMed 26281644Pritts KE, Hiller LG. Implementation of Physician and Nurse Patient Rounding on a 42-Bed Medical Unit. Medsurg Nurs. 2014 Nov-Dec;23(6):408-13.
- Results publicationShortell, S. (1989). ICU Nurse Questionnaire. Excerpted from The Organization and Management of Intensive Care Units. Copyright 1989, Shortell and Rousseau.
- Results publicationRigel, N., Delp, S., Ward, C. (2018). Effects of Nurse-Physician Collaborative Rounding, MEDSURG Nursing, 27(3) 149-152.
- Results publicationSturdivant, T., Herrin, K., Reynolds, M., Mestas, L. (2020). Improving Patient Satisfaction through a Nurse Leader-Physician Bedside Rounding Protocol: A Pilot Project, Nursing Econonmic$, 38(3).
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Study data or any protected health information will not be shared with anyone that is not delegated to the study. The PI is committed to disseminate research results in a timely fashion. Sharing of results generated by the data analysis during the course of the project will be through presentation at national scientific meetings and/or publication in open access journals. All information obtained will be source de-identified and presented on a large scale and not traceable to any one particular individual
Related trials for Wellness, Psychological
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Consciousness and Psilocybin Effects on Well-Being: The CoPEWell Study
Well-Being, Psychological, Psychedelic Experiences
Not yet recruiting
Building Resilience Through Anxiety Virtual Education in PICU Survivors
Critical Illness Recovery, Mental Health
Not yet recruiting
Mandala Coloring in Late Pregnancy
Pregnancy, Anxiety
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Ecological Momentary Assessment of State-Dependent Decision-Making and Metacognition Across a Psychopathology Continuum
Depression, Anxiety
Active, not recruiting
Emotional Well-being and Measures of Healthy Aging
Aging, Aging, Healthy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Wellness, Psychological, run by Methodist Health System at 2 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Jul 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Difference in percentage of discharged patients before 1400 (Mon-Fri) after project implementation compared to before implementation (time frame: "up to 100 weeks"). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06336915, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Jul 2025.