Results summary
Generated from the current project data.
58 board round reviews were audited. Overall compliance across all criteria was 79.2% against a local target of 90%. A senior decision-maker was involved in 91.4% of reviews. Criteria-to-reside status was reviewed and documented in 75.5% of relevant reviews, expected discharge date was updated in 81.1%, and a discharge pathway was assigned in 78.8% where relevant. A main barrier to progress was documented in 86.3%, with an action owner in 75.9% and a next action in 76.5%. Escalation was completed where required in 73.6%. 1 of 32 criteria met the local standard and 31 were below it.
Interpretation
Current data suggest the strongest areas are: Current clinical plan was documented. (96.2%); Patient or family / carer communication need was documented where relevant. (88%); Current clinical status was reviewed. (86.8%). The largest gaps are: Unresolved actions were carried forward with a named owner. (66.7%); Patient-specific discharge criteria were documented where criteria-led discharge is used. (68%); Previous board round actions were reviewed. (69.8%). Compliance varies between clinical areas, from 77.4% to 81.1%, which may indicate differences in board round format, attendance or documentation practice rather than differences in patient need. 2 board round-related safety, flow or discharge concerns were identified and should be reviewed through local governance. Findings should be interpreted alongside local operational pressures and sample size.
Areas of good practice
- 96.2%Current clinical plan was documented.
- 88%Patient or family / carer communication need was documented where relevant.
- 86.8%Current clinical status was reviewed.
- 86.3%Main barrier to progress or discharge was documented.
- 85.2%Nurse in charge or relevant nursing representative was involved.
Areas for improvement
- 66.7%Unresolved actions were carried forward with a named owner. (standard 90%)
- 68%Patient-specific discharge criteria were documented where criteria-led discharge is used. (standard 90%)
- 69.8%Previous board round actions were reviewed. (standard 90%)
- 72.2%Action deadline or timeframe was documented where relevant. (standard 90%)
- 73.5%Therapy actions were documented where relevant. (standard 90%)
- 73.6%Escalation was completed where required by local policy. (standard 90%)
Safety and escalation concerns
2 board round-related safety, flow or discharge concern(s) recorded. Escalation was completed in 15 of 18 reviews where escalation was required.
Any unresolved concern must be escalated through local clinical, operational and governance pathways.
Governance implications
Most frequently documented gap: Action timeframe not documented. Most frequent barrier to progress: No barrier documented.
Lazomis QIP supports quality improvement planning and documentation. It does not replace clinical judgement, local policy, professional responsibility or organisational governance processes. Users should ensure all improvement activity is agreed and implemented in accordance with local requirements.
Limitations
This was a single-organisation audit of 58 board round reviews and may not be representative of all wards, days of the week or times of year. Documentation-based audit can only assess what was recorded, not what was discussed. Not applicable and Unable to determine responses were excluded from compliance denominators, which may overstate performance where documentation was unclear. Add local context here.
Lessons learnt
Board round effectiveness depends less on the length of the meeting than on the discipline of the format: senior input, a consistent running order, an explicit barrier, a named owner and a timeframe for every outstanding action. Documentation that records the owner and next action is what allows the next shift, the discharge coordinator and the transfer of care hub to continue the plan without repeating the conversation.