Bringing Rounds Back to the Patient: A One-Year Evaluation of the Chiefs’ Service Model for Inpatient Teaching

Abstract

The CS approach to inpatient rounding is seen by residents as valuable and is associated with positive outcomes in terms of residents' perceptions of learning, interdisciplinary communication, and patient care.

The Effect of Bedside Rounds on Learning Outcomes in Medical Education: A Systematic Review

“…Of these, 20 articles met full inclusion criteria. 20,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] Characteristics of the included studies are outlined in Supplemental Digital Appendix 2 at http://links.lww.com/ ACADMED/B223. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (n = 16, 80%) and used a nonrandomized experimental design (n = 13, 65%).…”

“…20 In addition to the variability of the process of bedside rounds, there was also variability in how bedside rounds were implemented as part of a broader set of interventions. The majority of studies (n = 13, 65%) implemented bedside rounds with 1 or more cointerventions, including staff education/training (n = 8, 40%), 20,31,34,36,39,41,43,46 communication script/safety checklists (n = 5, 25%), 31,35,43,45,46 prerounds huddle/ determination of rounding order (n = 4, 20%), 30,34,35,39 and real-time order entry during rounds (n = 4, 20%). 36,39,42,46 Cointerventions were most often not balanced between intervention and control rounds-that is, the bedside rounds group often had additional interventions but the control group did not-leading to the potential for bias when trying to assess the specific contribution of bedside rounds to the outcome.…”

“…Fifteen studies (75%) reported a reactionary learning outcome (Table 1). 20,[29][30][31][32][33]35,[37][38][39][40]43,44,46,47 Outcomes and measures in this domain varied widely but often related to satisfaction with or preference for bedside rounds, or to the perceived educational value of bedside rounds.…”

“…Eight studies (40%) reported the effect of bedside rounds on learner behavior, with the majority (n = 5, 63%) favoring the bedside rounds intervention while 1 favored control, and 2 were equivocal (Table 3). [29][30][31]33,40,41,44,46 Fourteen studies (70%) measured the effect of bedside rounds on health care delivery, 20,[29][30][31][34][35][36]39,40,[42][43][44][45][46] with the majority (n = 8) favoring the intervention and the rest being equivocal (n = 6) (Table 4). The most common outcomes in this domain were the duration of rounds (n = 8) and interprofessional teamwork (n = 8), particularly between nurses and physicians.…”

Using Design Thinking to Spread iPACE™: An Interprofessional Medical Education Innovation in an Academic Medical Center

“…RC is a validated, proprietary survey that will be used to measure team functionality by assessing the quality of the 13 The Mini-Z is a validated 10-item tool that will be used to evaluate provider well-being by assessing perceptions of stress/ burnout, workplace function/culture, and use of the electronic medical record. 14 Lastly, the perceived experience of the care team (including quality of education and care) will be assessed via survey questions adapted from the literature 15,16 , ACGME milestone competencies for IM 17 , and the bi-annual survey assessing the MMC institutional culture of safety.…”