ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Resident Perspectives Regarding Education on Attending Rounds.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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.
- Rounding Styles on Inpatient Infectious Disease Consult Services: Impact on Education and Patient-Care Delivery.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAn important component of internal medicine resident education is morning (attending) rounds. Effective aspects of medical education include involving all team members, minimizing distractions, asking questions, and having ready access to data, all of which may not be present during rounds. There is limited information on learner-centered rounds or resident perspectives about education during rounds. To inform a learner-centered approach to rounds, the investigators conducted a focus group study of Internal Medicine residents exploring their perceived strengths and weaknesses of rounds, and how rounds could be better used as a teaching tool.
methodsThree 60-min focus groups were conducted with N = 21 postgraduate year 2/3 Internal Medicine Residents at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, NY, USA in 2021-2022. Two resident investigators led the focus groups using a semistructured interview guide. Questions included defining types of rounds, benefits and pitfalls of various rounding styles, their impact on resident education, and recommendations to improve education on morning rounds. The sessions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and de-identified. Transcripts were analyzed through inductive thematic analysis.
resultsRounding styles identified were bedside, table rounds, and a hybrid approach. Three themes emerged through analysis of the data: (1) A hybrid model offers an optimal balance of education; (2) full bedside rounds have unintended pitfalls; and (3) Attending preparation affects the quality of rounds.
conclusionsResidents' perceptions of the education on attending rounds are impacted by both attending rounding style and advanced preparation. Our participants' insights could inform a rounding approach that optimizes both patient- and learner-centeredness.
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.