ArticleJournal of paediatrics and child health2025
The Use of a Ward Round Teaching Tool in a Paediatric Oncology Department.
Article in Journal of paediatrics and child health, 2025. 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.
- The Use of a Ward Round Teaching Tool in a Paediatric Oncology Department.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimDespite ward rounds being fundamental to hospital-based clinical training, the reported educational value is low. Especially in busy environments, missed learning opportunities occur due to implicit learning, time barriers, and lack of ward round structure. The STIC framework (Set, Target, Inspect, Close) provides a learner-centred, structured approach to ward round teaching, aimed to enhance education within limited timeframes. We aimed to investigate how the introduction of the STIC framework impacts on learner-centred teaching within a tertiary Paediatric Oncology department.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate framework implementation, with two participant groups comprising 16 junior and senior doctors over 3 months. Surveys were used to document junior staff experience on rounds pre- and post-implementation, with focus groups and interviews used for all participants to explore satisfaction and attitudes to the tool.
resultsLearner satisfaction improved across all domains of the framework, specifically opportunities for leading clinical encounters and learning on consultant-led rounds. Despite consultants reporting lack of uptake, trainees reported improved teaching. Consultant beliefs and enthusiasm had a strong impact on trainee satisfaction. Trainees placed a high value on active participation and autonomy for their learning. Factors distinct to teaching were reported to affect learner satisfaction, such as planning, time management, and departmental culture.
conclusionsWe demonstrate enhanced teaching despite poor perceived uptake, demonstrating the potential of the STIC framework with further implementation. Our study also highlights that in addition to a specific teaching focus, consultant engagement and a safe clinical learning environment are crucial for learning.
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.