Oliver Hulland1, Jeanne Farnan2, Raphael Rabinowitz3, Lisa Kearns4, Michele Long5, Bradley Monash6, Priti Bhansali7, H Barrett Fromme8. 1. University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. oliverh@uchicago.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 3. University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 6. Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 7. Department of Pediatrics, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA. 8. Department of Pediatrics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rounds are a critical activity on any inpatient service, but there is little literature describing the purpose of rounds from the perspective of faculty and trainees in teaching hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the perceptions of pediatric and internal medicine attendings and medical students regarding the purpose of inpatient attending rounds. METHODS: The authors conducted 10 semistructured focus groups with attendings and medical students in the spring of 2014 at 4 teaching hospitals. The protocol was approved by the institutional review boards at all institutions. The authors employed a grounded theory approach to data collection and analysis, and data were analyzed by using the constant- comparative method. Two transcripts were read and coded independently by 2 authors to generate themes. RESULTS: Forty-eight attendings and 31 medical students participated in the focus groups. We categorized 218 comments into 4 themes comprised of 16 codes representing what attendings and medical students believed to be the purpose of rounds. These themes included communication, medical education, patient care, and assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight that rounds serve 4 purposes, including communication, medical education, patient care, and assessment. Importantly, both attendings and students agree on what they perceive to be the many purposes of rounds. Despite this, a disconnect appears to exist between what people believe are the purposes of rounds and what is happening during rounds.
BACKGROUND: Rounds are a critical activity on any inpatient service, but there is little literature describing the purpose of rounds from the perspective of faculty and trainees in teaching hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the perceptions of pediatric and internal medicine attendings and medical students regarding the purpose of inpatient attending rounds. METHODS: The authors conducted 10 semistructured focus groups with attendings and medical students in the spring of 2014 at 4 teaching hospitals. The protocol was approved by the institutional review boards at all institutions. The authors employed a grounded theory approach to data collection and analysis, and data were analyzed by using the constant- comparative method. Two transcripts were read and coded independently by 2 authors to generate themes. RESULTS: Forty-eight attendings and 31 medical students participated in the focus groups. We categorized 218 comments into 4 themes comprised of 16 codes representing what attendings and medical students believed to be the purpose of rounds. These themes included communication, medical education, patient care, and assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight that rounds serve 4 purposes, including communication, medical education, patient care, and assessment. Importantly, both attendings and students agree on what they perceive to be the many purposes of rounds. Despite this, a disconnect appears to exist between what people believe are the purposes of rounds and what is happening during rounds.
Authors: Erin Abu-Rish Blakeney; Frances Chu; Andrew A White; G Randy Smith; Kyla Woodward; Danielle C Lavallee; Rachel Marie E Salas; Genevieve Beaird; Mayumi A Willgerodt; Deborah Dang; John M Dent; Elizabeth Ibby Tanner; Nicole Summerside; Brenda K Zierler; Kevin D O'Brien; Bryan J Weiner Journal: J Interprof Care Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 2.338
Authors: Jeffrey D Goldsmith; Rachna Madan; Helen M Shields; James P Honan; Stephen R Pelletier; Christopher L Roy; Lindsey C Wu Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract Date: 2020-12-01
Authors: John T Ratelle; Michelle Herberts; Donna Miller; Ashok Kumbamu; Donna Lawson; Eric Polley; Thomas J Beckman Journal: J Patient Exp Date: 2021-04-08