Observational studyBMC medical education2026
Making student mistakes didactically useful in bedside teaching: relevance of learning content, teacher and patient presence.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudent mistakes are common in bedside teaching (BST) and can serve as important learning opportunities. However, little is known about how frequently mistakes occur in authentic clinical settings, what types of learning content they involve, and how teacher and patient presence shape teachers' handling of these mistakes. This study investigated (RQ1) the relevance of learning content during student mistakes, (RQ2) associations between mistake types and teachers' reactions, and (RQ3) whether patient presence influences clinical teachers' responses to mistakes.
methodsWe conducted an observational study based on video recordings of 36 BST sessions across internal medicine, neurology, and orthopaedics (78.4 h). Using a hierarchical coding scheme, we identified mistakes, classified their learning content and mistake types, and coded teacher reactions as well as teacher and patient presence. Interrater reliability ranged from substantial to excellent. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of mistakes per hour and their distribution across the learning content. Associations between mistake types and teacher reactions were analysed via Spearman's rank correlations (RQ2). Mann-Whitney U tests (RQ3) were used when examining whether teachers' mistake-related behaviours differed depending on the presence or absence of the patient.
resultsAcross all BST sessions, the students made an average of 4.9 mistakes per hour. Mistakes occurred most often during theoretical knowledge and clinical reasoning, predominantly as reproduction mistakes, whereas an incorrect application of skills was most frequent during clinical examination and case presentations. Teacher presence was positively associated with the number of observed mistakes, particularly reproduction mistakes. During the physical examination, the students were supervised for only 72% of the active practice time. Teachers' reactions - including elaboration, directness of feedback, and time provided for correction - did not differ significantly depending on patient presence.
conclusionsStudent mistakes are common in BST and hold considerable didactic value; however, this value is not fully realised when supervision is inconsistent or when feedback remains limited. Enhancing clinical teachers' capacity to detect errors, providing structured and supportive feedback, and adapting their approach to the presence of patients may strengthen their ability to learn from mistakes. Interventions that cultivate psychological safety and promote effective error-management practices could further improve the pedagogical quality of BST.
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.