Evaluating medical grand rounds

Abstract

Most presenters' ratings were distributed in a narrow range. Ranking of individual presentations would require exceptionally high precision. Separation into groups requires less precision. This type of classification appears sufficient to enable planning decisions.

The development of a participant questionnaire to assess continuing medical education presentations

“…It is interesting to note that during the time we were developing this questionnaire, the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto was developing its own questionnaire to measure CME presentations 5 . Content, reliability and number of raters required to produce a stable evaluation are comparable between the 2 instruments, although the latter did not report on the use of comments for feedback to the presenter.…”

Hospital grand rounds in Australia

“…Other institutions are actively providing feedback to presenters to improve presentation, including computerised audience‐response systems 14 , 15 . Surveys of attendees to elicit topics and specialties that accurately reflect participants’ needs have also been employed 16 , 17 . Some Australian hospitals are using professional development for presenters, such as occurs in “Teaching on the Run” training modules, which were designed to help improve the quality of teaching and supervision by clinicians 18…”

Can We Make Grand Rounds “Grand” Again?

“…30 Grand rounds should summarize advances across a specialty and its subspecialties, help facilitate interaction among faculty members, and integrate different subspecialties. 5,31,51 Another novel way to integrate different specialties is to ask specialists what common errors in treatment are made by nonspecialists and conduct a grand rounds on these topics. 14 Attributes of the Presentation An uninspired presenter often has a negative impact on an educational session.…”

“…4,39 Research on evaluating lectures has led to recommendations that the evaluation encompass the lecture objectives and whether the lecture demonstrated thorough knowledge of the presenter, demonstrated clarity and organization, stimulated enthusiasm, had an appropriate level of depth and detail, included effective visuals and presentation style, was at least 25% interactive, established rapport with audience, and had an overall effectiveness. 51…”