Interdisciplinary bedside rounds (IBRs) have emerged as a transformative model for advancing interprofessional communication and delivering patient-centered care — yet their adoption remains inconsistent, and their full potential largely unrealized across inpatient medicine. As healthcare systems face mounting pressure to improve safety, care coordination, and patient experience simultaneously, the structure of daily hospital rounds has never been more consequential. Traditional physician-led rounds, while deeply embedded in clinical culture, carry well-documented limitations — hierarchical communication, restricted patient participation, and fragmented decision-making — that increasingly fall short of modern standards for collaborative, equitable care. This narrative review critically examines five major rounding models — traditional medical rounds, multidisciplinary rounds, IBR, structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds (SIBR), and trio rounds — evaluating each through the lens of interprofessional communication, patient experience, and clinical outcomes. Rather than advocating for a single universal model, this review reveals that optimal rounding is context-dependent, shaped by institutional resources, clinical complexity, and team composition. By synthesizing the current evidence and defining the distinct role of each rounding model, this review offers a practical framework for clinicians and healthcare leaders seeking to elevate interprofessional collaboration — and outlines the research priorities needed to standardize IBR implementation across diverse inpatient settings.