Dataset Information

The Effect of Bedside Rounds on Learning Outcomes in Medical Education: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: To determine if bedside rounds, compared to other forms of hospital ward rounds, improve learning outcomes in medical education. For this systematic review, the authors searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from inception through February 20, 2020. Experimental studies were included if they (1) compared bedside rounds to any other form of rounds in a hospital-based setting, and (2) reported a quantitative comparison of a learning outcome (e.g., learner reaction, knowledge, skills, behavior, health care delivery) among physicians in training (medical students, residents, fellows). Extraction elements were summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of design, implementation, and outcomes. Twenty studies met inclusion criteria, including 7 randomized trials. All studies involved resident physicians, and 11 also involved medical students. The design and implementation of bedside rounds varied widely, with most studies (n = 13) involving cointerventions (e.g., staff education, real-time order entry).Of the 15 studies that reported learner satisfaction, 7 favored bedside rounds, 4 favored the control, and 4 were equivocal. Of the 4 studies reporting an outcome of learners' knowledge and skills, 2 favored bedside rounds and 2 were equivocal. Of the 8 studies that reported on learner behavior (e.g., bedside communication with patients), 5 favored bedside rounds, 1 favored control, and 2 were equivocal. Finally, of the 14 studies that reported a health care delivery outcome (e.g., teamwork, rounding time), 8 favored bedside rounds and 6 were equivocal. Due to the high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity across studies, the overall strength of evidence was low. In hospital-based settings, learners' satisfaction with bedside rounds is mixed. However, bedside rounds appear to have a positive effect on learner behavior and health care delivery. Given their potential value, additional research is needed to identify barriers to and facilitators of educationally successful bedside rounds.

SUBMITTER: Ratelle JT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9126262 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Effect of Bedside Rounds on Learning Outcomes in Medical Education: A Systematic Review.

Ratelle John T JT Gallagher Caitlyn N CN Sawatsky Adam P AP Kashiwagi Deanne T DT Schouten Will M WM Gonzalo Jed D JD Beckman Thomas J TJ West Colin P CP

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 20220111 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine if bedside rounds, compared with other forms of hospital ward rounds, improve learning outcomes in medical education.<h4>Method</h4>For this systematic review, the authors searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from inception through February 20, 2020. Experimental studies were included if they (1) compared bedside rounds to any other form of rounds in a hospital-based setting, and (2) reported a quantitative comparison of a learning outcome (e.g., learner reactio ...[more]

PMID: 35020612

Similar Datasets

Project description:Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011.Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction.Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects.From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78).Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2)?>?50 % in most analyses).Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.

Project description:BackgroundBlended learning, which combines face-to-face learning and e-learning, has grown rapidly to be commonly used in education. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this learning approach has not been completely quantitatively synthesized and evaluated using knowledge outcomes in health education.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of blended learning compared to that of traditional learning in health education.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of blended learning in health education in MEDLINE from January 1990 to July 2019. We independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and compared overall blended learning versus traditional learning, offline blended learning versus traditional learning, online blended learning versus traditional learning, digital blended learning versus traditional learning, computer-aided instruction blended learning versus traditional learning, and virtual patient blended learning versus traditional learning. All pooled analyses were based on random-effect models, and the I2 statistic was used to quantify heterogeneity across studies.ResultsA total of 56 studies (N=9943 participants) assessing several types of learning support in blended learning met our inclusion criteria; 3 studies investigated offline support, 7 studies investigated digital support, 34 studies investigated online support, 8 studies investigated computer-assisted instruction support, and 5 studies used virtual patient support for blended learning. The pooled analysis comparing all blended learning to traditional learning showed significantly better knowledge outcomes for blended learning (standardized mean difference 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28, I2=94.3%). Similar results were observed for online (standardized mean difference 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.86, I2=94.9%), computer-assisted instruction (standardized mean difference 1.13, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.79, I2=78.0%), and virtual patient (standardized mean difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.06, I2=78.4%) learning support, but results for offline learning support (standardized mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.79, I2=87.9%) and digital learning support (standardized mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.52, I2=93.4%) were not significant.ConclusionsFrom this review, blended learning demonstrated consistently better effects on knowledge outcomes when compared with traditional learning in health education. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore the utility of different design variants of blended learning.

Project description:PurposeA better understanding of how communication skills education impacts trainees' communication skills is important for continual improvement in graduate medical education (GME). Guided by the Kirkpatrick Model, this review focused on studies that measured communication skills in either simulated or clinical settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effect of experiential communication skills education on GME trainees' communication behaviors.MethodFive databases were searched for studies published between 2001 and 2021 using terms representing the concepts of medical trainees, communication, training, and skills and/or behaviors. Included studies had an intervention design, focused only on GME trainees as learners, used experiential methods, and had an outcome measure of communication skills behavior that was assessed by a simulated or standardized patient (SP), patient, family member, or outside observer. Studies were examined for differences in outcomes based on study design; simulated versus clinical evaluation setting; outside observer versus SP, patient, or family member evaluator; and length of training.ResultsSeventy-seven studies were ultimately included. Overall, 54 (70%) studies reported some positive findings (i.e., change in behavior). There were 44 (57%) single-group pre-post studies, 13 (17%) nonrandomized control studies, and 20 (26%) randomized control studies. Positive findings were frequent in single-group designs (80%) and were likely in nonrandomized (62%) and randomized (55%) control trials. Positive findings were likely in studies evaluating communication behavior in simulated (67%) and clinical (78%) settings as well as in studies with outside observer (63%) and SP, patient, and family member (64%) evaluators.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates strong support that experiential communication skills education can impact GME trainees' communication behaviors. Marked heterogeneity in communication trainings and evaluation measures, even among subgroups, did not allow for meta-analysis or comparative efficacy evaluation of different studies. Future studies would benefit from homogeneity in curricular and evaluation measures.

Project description:BackgroundMedical education has emphasized the importance of integrating medical humanities training into the curriculum to benefit medical and nursing students' future practice, featuring in the list of national funding priorities for healthcare education research in Taiwan for many years. However, the extent to which this drive has resulted in medical humanities training, what rationales underpin its inclusion, and its efficacy is largely unknown. This study aims to address these issues across medical humanities programs within the Taiwanese context.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review. Inclusion criteria included studies in English or Mandarin reporting outcomes of medical humanities courses in healthcare education settings in Taiwan between 2000 and 2019. We searched across five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, ERIC, PsycInfo, Web of Science), following PRISMA guidelines. The Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) Global Scale and Kirkpatrick Levels are used for identifying the strength of evidence.Results17 articles were extracted from the 134 identified. Intrinsic and instrumental rationales for the inclusion of medical humanities education were common, compared with epistemological-based and critical-based approaches. Several positive impacts were identified in relation to participation including modification of attitudes, knowledge, and skills. However, the highest level (i.e., unequivocal) of evidence characterized by effects on students' behaviors or ongoing interaction with colleagues and patients is lacking.ConclusionFindings suggest that although medical humanities education is widely implemented in Taiwan, no clear consensus has been reached regarding the rationale for inclusion or how it is localized from Western to Asian contexts. Future research still needs to explore the long-term impact of medical humanities education for medical and nursing students and its impact on patient care.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42019123967.

Project description:BackgroundHigher education institutions (HEIs) have recently integrated Schwartz Rounds (Rounds) as innovative ways of supporting health professional students' reflective practice, interprofessional learning and compassionate care. Emerging evidence suggests that Rounds benefit students' shared sense of belonging and insight into emotional aspects of training and care, providing safe places to share experiences and reflect. Our review examines the current literature regarding health students' evaluation of Rounds in HEIs, exploring experiences and perceived benefits of participating. We consider methodological issues with the existing literature and propose ways of addressing these in future research.MethodsSystematic searches were conducted on EBSCO, PsycINFO, PubMed and ASSIA to identify available literature relating to Schwartz Rounds in higher education. Eight studies - six with a mixed method design and two qualitative - were included in the review. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed. Evaluation survey data and themes generated from qualitative responses were considered together and a narrative synthesis was constructed.ResultsDespite challenges with differing measurements and scale usage, five themes were identified reflecting the experience and perceived benefits for students attending Rounds. Students highlighted the value of peer connection and communication; normalisation of emotions; collaborative reflection and self-awareness; and the relevance of Rounds in their daily work and patient care. Students also commented on barriers to participation including Rounds' multidisciplinary nature, their group size, and the presence of staff. The majority of students rated Rounds as excellent or exceptional and agreed they should be integrated into the curriculum.ConclusionsOur findings on Schwartz Rounds in higher education suggest they support student reflective practice and confidence in providing compassionate, high-quality patient care. However, the quality of research in this area is mixed, reflecting the relatively recent integration of Rounds in Higher education, and the challenges of implementing and evaluating new interventions in educational settings.

Dataset Information

The Effect of Bedside Rounds on Learning Outcomes in Medical Education: A Systematic Review.

Publications

The Effect of Bedside Rounds on Learning Outcomes in Medical Education: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets