ArticleThe Neurohospitalist2024
Perception of In-Person Prerounding Amongst Neurology Residents Across Two Academic Centers.
Article in The Neurohospitalist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: In-person prerounding has long been a routine practice for residents in the field of neurology. However, with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions, including our two academic neurology centers, have shifted to computer rounding. This study aims to assess the effects of computer rounding alone compared to a combination of computer rounding and in-person prerounding from the perspective of neurology residents. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was employed, including a survey administered to 79 neurology residents and a qualitative thematic analysis of their responses. Results: The quantitative analysis revealed that residents who engaged in inperson prerounding spent significantly more time on prerounding and computer rounding compared to those who did not. The majority of residents reported a neutral effect of in-person prerounding on their relationship with patients and bedside time, but a significant impact on personal lives and other tasks. Qualitative analysis identified four key themes: accessibility to team members, learning opportunities gained and lost, inefficiency, and sleep disturbance. Conclusions: Overall, residents perceived in-person prerounding as inefficient and causing sleep disruption for both patients and themselves. While some residents valued the face-to-face interaction and improved accessibility, others felt that computer rounding allowed for thorough review of patient data, improving preparedness and efficiency. The potential elimination of in-person prerounding from residents' routines may enhance their overall wellbeing. Further research is needed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of removing this classic approach to caring for patients from the perspective of residents, attendings and patients.
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.