Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40124908›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Education2025

Education Research: Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine & Neurology (BRAINs): A Trainee-Led Program to Promote Residents' Confidence With Neurology.

Galina Gheihman, Prashanth Rajarajan, Marinos G Sotiropoulos, Sarah Esther Conway

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Galina GheihmanDepartment of Neurology, Mass General Brigham, Boston, MA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1599-3271
Prashanth RajarajanDepartment of Neurology, Mass General Brigham, Boston, MA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1240-6716
Marinos G SotiropoulosDepartment of Neurology, Mass General Brigham, Boston, MA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3032-7069
Sarah Esther ConwayHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2873-7368

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction and Problem Statement: Patients with neurologic symptoms are often first assessed by general medical providers, many of whom endorse low confidence and knowledge in evaluating neurologic patients. To address this gap, we designed, implemented, and evaluated the Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine & Neurology Residents (BRAINs) Program. Objectives: Program objectives for internal medicine residents (IMRs) were to develop an approach to obtaining a focused neurologic history and to performing a focused physical examination. Objectives for neurology instructors were to demonstrate a focused neurologic history and examination and practice observing learners examining patients and providing specific feedback. Methods and Curriculum Description: BRAINs paired neurology trainees (residents and fellows) with teams of 4-5 IMRs and subinterns for a 45-minute structured bedside teaching session bimonthly. Neurology instructors demonstrated a focused history and examination at the bedside for a patient admitted with a neurologic concern. IMRs then practiced a hands-on examination with real-time feedback. We evaluated the BRAINs program using a mixed quantitative-qualitative postsession survey. Neurology educators were surveyed on their teaching experiences. Results and Assessment Data: Seventy-four IMRs participated and completed the survey since 2022. Participants agreed that BRAINs met the learning objectives of developing an approach to obtaining a neurologic history (69/74, 84%) and performing a neurologic examination (71/74, 96%). IMRs felt more confident in taking a focused history (62/74, 85%) and performing an examination (69/74, 93%) after the session. Ninety-five percent felt that bedside teaching was more effective than traditional didactics. Eighteen neurology educators completed the survey. One hundred percent reported that BRAINs was an effective way to practice near-peer teaching, and 89% reported that it was more effective than traditional didactics. Feedback from IMRs and educators helped iteratively improve the initiative. Discussion and Lessons Learned: The BRAINs program offered a scalable and adaptable structured teaching session that accommodates learners at various levels and promotes near-peer teaching in the clinical setting. The program is not resource intensive and can be scaled to different specialties, populations of learners, and hospitals. The BRAINs program is an educational innovation that supports cross-departmental camaraderie, empowers near-peer educators, and equips IMRs with increased confidence in neurologic knowledge and skills.

Identifiers

PMID40124908
PMCPMC11927750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.