•  
  •  

Scholarly Commons > HCA Healthcare Journal > Vol. 6 > Iss. 1 (2025)

 

Keywords

geographic rounding; geographic cohort; patient satisfaction; hospital units; hospitalists; patient care team; interprofessional relations; provider burnout; physicians

Disciplines

Health Services Administration | Health Services Research | Quality Improvement

Abstract

Background

Geographical cohorting in hospital settings represents a significant shift from traditional patient rounding practices and aims to enhance the efficiency of health care delivery. This model assigns hospitalists to a particular inpatient unit, where most of their patients are located. While this model has several benefits, including streamlining health care procedures, optimizing resource allocation, and fostering better provider communication, its implementation is not without its challenges.

Methods

Our methodology for researching geographical cohorting involved a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed studies, surveys, and retrospective analyses. We utilized academic databases, such as PubMed, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, to identify relevant articles. Keywords used in the search included "geographic cohorting," "geographic rounding," "hospitalist," "patient outcomes," "provider satisfaction," and "hospital-acquired infections."

Conclusion

Geographical rounding has been associated with a reduction in the incidence of hospital-acquired infections and other adverse outcomes, suggesting its potential to create a safer patient care environment. However, problems such as increased interruptions, indirect care time, and the possibility of diminished interpersonal communication highlight the intricacy involved in successfully implementing such a model. The adoption of geographical cohorting is further complicated by operational problems, such as the necessity for major operational expenditure and patient flow management. Notwithstanding these difficulties, research has shown mixed results regarding geographic cohorting, with some studies suggesting potential advantages, such as enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration and a decline in provider burnout. However, its impact on patient outcomes, like in-patient stay and satisfaction, is inconsistent.

Download

Share

COinS