ReviewThe clinical teacher2020
Contemporary practice of standardised bedside teaching rounds.
Review in The clinical teacher, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An EPA for better Bedside Teaching.The clinical teacher · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this article is to review the extant literature on bedside teaching rounds within the context of ward rounds performed with the entire clinical team at the patient's bedside, and to assess the effects of standardisation of this process on patient and learner satisfaction, as well as other duty-hour restrictions and patient care metrics in the academic inpatient setting. Ultimately, the intent of this review is to inform faculty development sessions for educators on the benefits and challenges of standardised rounding protocols.
methodsWe performed a search of PubMed, Scopus and CINAHL databases (from 2003 to August 2019). Randomised, controlled trials, pre- and post-interventional studies and cohort studies, in English, were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently searched, screened and analysed the studies, and a narrative synthesis was performed. Articles were evaluated methodologically using the Medical Education Research Quality Study Instrument (MERQSI).
resultsFive articles were included, with one randomised controlled trial, three cohort studies, and one pre- and post-interventional study. The collective MERSQI score for the studies was 12.3. Patient satisfaction increased uniformly across studies when standardised practices were used. Attempts to improve learner satisfaction, however, achieved mixed results. In addition, the time of bedside rounds was found to decrease with standardised interventions overall.
conclusionIn light of generally positive albeit limited evidence for standardised rounding practices, faculty development initiatives might use these data to inform and educate faculty members regarding the use of standardised protocols for bedside rounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.