ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021
Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Morning Report: a Multicenter Survey.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the Social Interaction Architecture of Clinical Reasoning in Morning Report: A Mixed-Methods Social Network Analysis.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- "A safe, non-judgmental space where I can really challenge myself:" learner experiences in a virtual, case-based diagnostic reasoning conference for students.Medical education online · 2024Article
- Incorporating an Analytical Approach to Ethical Reasoning into an Ethics Case Conference for Residents.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- Exploring formal and informal learning opportunities during morning report: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- What internal medicine attendings talk about at morning report: a multicenter study.BMC medical education · 2023Observational
- The Morning Report Practice and Its Contribution to Education of Internal Medicine Residents: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Survey in the Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023Article
- How doctors build community and socialize into a clinical department through morning reports. A positioning theory study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Virtual Morning Report: a Multicenter Survey.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResidents rate morning report (MR) as an essential educational activity. Little contemporary evidence exists to guide medical educators on the optimal content or most effective delivery strategies, particularly in the era of resident duty-hour limitations and shifts towards learner-centric pedagogy in graduate medical education.
objectiveAssess resident views about MR content and teaching strategies.
designAnonymous, online survey.
participantsInternal medicine residents from 10 VA-affiliated residency programs. MAIN MEASURES: The 20-item survey included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend, who should teach, and how to prioritize the teaching; and respondents' comfort level with participating in MR. The survey included a combination of Likert-style and multiple-choice questions with the option for multiple responses. KEY
resultsA total of 497 residents (46%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of R1s (33%), R2s (35%), and R3s (31%). Self-reported MR attendance was high (31% always attend; 39% attend > 50% of the time), with clinical duties being the primary barrier to attendance (85%). Most respondents felt that medical students (89%), R1 (96%), and R2/R3s (96%) should attend MR; there was less consensus regarding including attendings (61%) or fellows (34%). Top-rated educational topics included demonstration of clinical reasoning (82%), evidence-based medicine (77%), and disease pathophysiology (53%). Respondents valued time spent on diagnostic work-up (94%), management (93%), and differential building (90%). Overall, 82% endorsed feeling comfortable speaking; fewer R1s reported comfort (76%) compared with R2s (87%) or R3s (83%, p = 0.018). Most (81%) endorsed that MR was an inclusive learning environment (81%), with no differences by level of training.
conclusionsMR remains a highly regarded, well-attended educational conference. Residents value high-quality cases that emphasize clinical reasoning, diagnosis, and management. A supportive, engaging learning environment with expert input and concise, evidence-based teaching is desired.
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.