ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2020
Is Asking Questions on Rounds a Teachable Skill? A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Attendings' Asking Questions.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Response to "Is Asking Questions on Rounds a Teachable Skill? A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Attendings' Asking Questions" - A Medical Student Perspective [Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 2021Article
- Assessing "How to Ask Questions" - Response to: Is Asking Questions on Rounds a Teachable Skill? [Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 2021Article
- Is Asking Questions on Rounds a Teachable Skill?[Response to Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMorning bedside rounds remain an essential part of Internal Medicine residency education, but rounds vary widely in terms of educational value and learner engagement.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to increase the number and variety of questions asked by attendings at the bedside and assess its impact.
designWe conducted a randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of our intervention.
participantsHospitalist attendings on the general medicine service were invited to participate. Twelve hospitalists were randomized to the experimental group and ten hospitalists to the control group.
interventionA one-hour interactive session which teaches and models the method of asking questions using a non-medical case, followed by practice using role plays with medical cases. MAIN MEASURES: Our primary outcome was the number of questions asked by attendings during rounds. We used audio-video recordings of rounds evaluated by blinded reviewers to quantify the number of questions asked, and we also recorded the type of question and the person asked. We assessed whether learners found rounds worthwhile using anonymous surveys of residents, patients, and nurses. KEY
resultsBlinded analysis of the audio-video recordings demonstrated significantly more questions asked by attendings in the experimental group compared to the control group (mean number of questions 23.5 versus 10.8, p< 0.001) with significantly more questions asked of the residents (p<0.003). Residents rated morning bedside rounds with the experimental attendings as significantly more worthwhile compared to rounds with the control group attendings (p=0.009).
conclusionOur study findings highlight the benefits of a one-hour intervention to teach faculty a method of asking questions during bedside rounds. This educational strategy had the positive outcome of including significantly more resident voices at the bedside. Residents who rounded with attendings in the experimental group were more likely to "strongly agree" that bedside rounds were "worthwhile".
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.