Dataset Information

Sitting at the Bedside: Patient and Internal Medicine Trainee Perceptions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sitting at the bedside may strengthen physician-patient communication and improve patient experience. Yet despite the potential benefits of sitting, hospital physicians, including resident physicians, may not regularly sit down while speaking with patients.

Objective

To examine the frequency of sitting by internal medicine residents (including first post-graduate year [PGY-1] and supervising [PGY-2/3] residents) during inpatient encounters and to assess the association between patient-reported sitting at the bedside and patients' perceptions of other physician communication behaviors. We also assessed residents' attitudes towards sitting.

Design

In-person survey of patients and email survey of internal medicine residents between August 2019 and January 2020.

Participants

Patients admitted to general medicine teaching services and internal medicine residents at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Main measures

Patient-reported frequency of sitting at the bedside, patients' perceptions of other communication behaviors (e.g., checking for understanding); residents' attitudes regarding sitting.

Key results

Of 334 eligible patients, 256 (76%) completed a survey. Among these 256 respondents, 198 (77%) and 166 (65%) reported recognizing the PGY-1 and PGY-2/3 on their care team, respectively, for a total of 364 completed surveys. On most surveys (203/364, 56%), patients responded that residents "never" sat. Frequent sitting at the bedside ("every single time" or "most of the time," together 48/364, 13%) was correlated with other positive behaviors, including spending enough time at the bedside, checking for understanding, and not seeming to be in a rush (p < 0.01 for all). Of 151 residents, 77 (51%) completed the resident survey; 28 of the 77 (36%) reported sitting frequently. The most commonly cited barrier to sitting was that chairs were not available (38 respondents, 49%).

Conclusions

Patients perceived that residents sit infrequently. However, sitting was associated with other positive communication behaviors; this is compatible with the hypothesis that promoting sitting could improve overall patient perceptions of provider communication.

SUBMITTER: Golden BP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8744572 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWomen are underrepresented within internal medicine (IM). Whether women leaders attract women trainees is not well explored.ObjectiveTo characterize leader and trainee gender across US academic IM and to investigate the association of leader gender with trainee gender.DesignCross-sectional study.ParticipantsLeaders (chairs, chiefs, program directors (PDs)) in 2018 and trainees (residents, fellows) in 2012-2016 at medical school-affiliated IM and seven IM fellowship programs.ExposureLeadership (chair/chief and program director; and, for resident analyses, fellow) gender.Main measuresOur primary outcome was percent women trainees (IM residents and, separately, subspecialty fellows). We used standard statistics to describe leadership and trainee gender. We created separate multivariable linear regressions to evaluate associations of leader gender and percent women fellows with percent women IM residents. We then created separate multivariable multilevel models (site as a random effect) to evaluate associations of leader gender with percent women subspecialty fellows.Key resultsOur cohort consisted of 940 programs. Women were 13.4% of IM chairs and <25% of chiefs in each fellowship subspecialty (cardiology: 2.6%; gastroenterology: 6.6%; pulmonary and critical care: 10.7%; nephrology: 14.4%; endocrinology: 20.6%; hematology-oncology: 23.2%; infectious diseases: 24.3%). IM PDs were 39.7% women; fellowship PDs ranged from nearly 25% (cardiology and gastroenterology) to nearly 50% (endocrinology and infectious disease) women. Having more women fellows (but not chairs or PDs) was associated with having more women residents (0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.5%) increase per 1% fellow increase, p<0.001); this association remained after adjustment (0.3% (0.1%, 0.4%), p=0.001). In unadjusted analyses, having a woman PD (increase of 7.7% (4.7%, 10.6%), p<0.001) or chief (increase of 8.9% (4.6%, 13.1%), p<0.001) was associated with an increase in women fellows; after adjustment, these associations were lost.ConclusionsWomen held a minority of leadership positions in academic IM. Having women leaders was not independently associated with having more women trainees.

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted graduate medical education, compelling training programs to abruptly transition to virtual educational formats despite minimal experience or proficiency. We surveyed residents from a national sample of internal medicine (IM) residency programs to describe their experiences with the transition to virtual morning report (MR), a highly valued core educational conference.ObjectiveAssess resident views about virtual MR content and teaching strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignAnonymous, web-based survey.ParticipantsResidents from 14 academically affiliated IM residency programs.Main measuresThe 25-item survey on virtual MR included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend and teach; how the virtual format affects the learning environment; how virtual MR compares to in-person MR with regard to participation, engagement, and overall education; and whether virtual MR should continue after in-person conferences can safely resume. The survey included a combination of Likert-style, multiple option, and open-ended questions.ResultsSix hundred fifteen residents (35%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of interns (39%), second-year (31%), and third-year (30%) residents. When comparing their overall assessment of in-person and virtual MR formats, 42% of residents preferred in-person, 18% preferred virtual, and 40% felt they were equivalent. Most respondents endorsed better peer-engagement, camaraderie, and group participation with in-person MR. Chat boxes, video participation, audience response systems, and smart boards/tablets enhanced respondents' educational experience during virtual MR. Most respondents (72%) felt that the option of virtual MR should continue when it is safe to resume in-person conferences.ConclusionsVirtual MR was a valued alternative to traditional in-person MR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Residents feel that the virtual platform offers unique educational benefits independent of and in conjunction with in-person conferences. Residents support the integration of a virtual platform into the delivery of MR in the future.