Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30537960›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2018

Overcoming the barriers of teaching physical examination at the bedside: more than just curriculum design.

Melissa Rousseau, Karen D Könings, Claire Touchie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cardiac Physical Exam Skills and Auscultation Session for Pediatric Interns.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2022
    Article
  13. Teaching Evidence-Based Physical Diagnosis: A Workshop for Hospitalists.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Melissa RousseauDepartment of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Road CPCR L2135, Box 209, Ontario, Ottawa, K1H 8L6, Canada. merousseau@toh.on.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6523-8691
Karen D KöningsDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands, Universiteitssingel 60, Room M 5.08, 6229 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Claire TouchieDepartment of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road CPCR L2135, Box 209, Ontario, Ottawa, K1H 8L6, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians in training must achieve a high degree of proficiency in performing physical examinations and must strive to become experts in the field. Concerns are emerging about physicians' abilities to perform these basic skills, essential for clinical decision making. Learning at the bedside has the potential to support skill acquisition through deliberate practice. Previous skills improvement programs, targeted at teaching physical examinations, have been successful at increasing the frequency of performing and teaching physical examinations. It remains unclear what barriers might persist after such program implementation. This study explores residents' and physicians' perceptions of physical examinations teaching at the bedside following the implementation of a new structured bedside curriculum: What are the potentially persisting barriers and proposed solutions for improvement?

methodsThe study used a constructivist approach using a qualitative inductive thematic analysis that was oriented to construct an understanding of the barriers and facilitators of physical examination teaching in the context of a new bedside curriculum. Participants took part in individual interviews and subsequently focus groups. Transcripts were coded and themes were identified.

resultsData analyses yielded three main themes: (1) the culture of teaching physical examination at the bedside is shaped and threatened by the lack of hospital support, physicians' motivation and expertise, residents' attitudes and dependence on technology, (2) the hospital environment makes bedside teaching difficult because of its chaotic nature, time constraints and conflicting responsibilities, and finally (3) structured physical examination curricula create missed opportunities in being restrictive and pose difficulties in identifying patients with findings.

conclusionsDespite the implementation of a structured bedside curriculum for physical examination teaching, our study suggests that cultural, environmental and curriculum-related barriers remain important issues to be addressed. Institutions wishing to develop and implement similar bedside curricula should prioritize recruitment of expert clinical teachers, recognizing their time and efforts. Teaching should be delivered in a protected environment, away from clinical duties, and with patients with real findings. Physicians must value teaching and learning of physical examination skills, with multiple hands-on opportunities for direct role modeling, coaching, observation and deliberate practice. Ideally, clinical teachers should master the art of combining both patient care and educational activities.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducation, Medical, GraduateInternship and ResidencyAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePhysical ExaminationPoint-of-Care TestingQualitative ResearchBedsideCurriculumMedical education – Clinical skills trainingPhysical examinationQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID30537960
PMCPMC6288852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.