To the Editor

Effective communication between healthcare professionals is crucial in ensuring the delivery of safe and high-quality patient care [1]. Multidisciplinary rounds provide a structured platform that fosters collaboration, enhances communication, and ultimately improves patient outcomes. In the dynamic and fast-paced environment of the intensive care unit (ICU), where the care of critically ill patients demands prompt decision-making and seamless coordination, effective communication is of paramount importance [1, 2]. Nurses and physicians play distinct yet interconnected roles in the provision of care. However, historically, communication gaps and hierarchical barriers have hindered the exchange of information and collaboration between these two essential groups [1].

Multidisciplinary rounds offer a solution to bridge this gap by creating a dedicated time and space for nurses and physicians to come together to discuss patient cases, share perspectives, and develop a unified care plan. These rounds typically involve the participation of various healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, social workers, and other relevant stakeholders. By bringing together the expertise and insights of different disciplines, multidisciplinary rounds promote a holistic approach to patient care [3, 4].

During multidisciplinary rounds, nurses have the opportunity to share their observations, concerns, and valuable firsthand knowledge about the patients they care for on a daily basis. Their close proximity to the patients enables them to provide critical insights into the patient's condition, response to treatment, and any changes in their status. This information, when shared with physicians, can help in early identification of potential issues, adjustment of treatment plans, and improved patient outcomes [1, 5]. Conversely, physicians can provide valuable medical expertise, clarify treatment plans, and address any questions or concerns raised by the nursing staff. This collaboration fosters mutual respect, trust, and a shared sense of responsibility for patient care [3, 6]. The multidisciplinary approach allows for the development of a comprehensive care plan that takes into account the perspectives and input of all team members. Furthermore, multidisciplinary rounds also serve as an educational opportunity for all participants [1, 2]. Nurses gain a deeper understanding of the medical decision-making process, while physicians gain insights into the challenges faced by nurses in the implementation of care plans. This shared learning experience promotes a culture of continuous professional development and strengthens the overall team dynamics [1, 6]. Implementing multidisciplinary rounds requires a commitment from the institution to allocate dedicated time and resources. It also necessitates a supportive and inclusive organizational culture that values and encourages interdisciplinary collaboration. Clear communication protocols, standardized documentation, and feedback mechanisms are essential to ensure the success of this modality [4, 6, 7].

In conclusion, multidisciplinary rounds have the potential to significantly improve communication between nurses and physicians in the ICU. By fostering collaboration, enhancing information exchange, and promoting a shared decision-making process, these rounds contribute to the delivery of safe and high-quality patient care. It is imperative that healthcare institutions recognize the value of multidisciplinary rounds and prioritize their implementation as a means to bridge the communication gap between nurses and physicians in the ICU.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work: AB; Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: AB; Final approval of the version to be published: AB; Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: AB.

Funding

Self-funded.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

We do not have potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on request.

Using artificial intelligent chatbots

None.