Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 9027273

On bedside teaching.

Abstract

Actual teaching at the bedside during attending rounds, with emphasis on history taking and physical diagnosis, has declined from an incidence of 75% in the 1960s to an incidence of less than 16% today. Profound advances in technology, in imaging, and in laboratory testing and our fascination for these aspects of patient care, account for part of this decline, but faculty must also assume responsibility for the present lack of bedside teaching. If we are to reverse this trend, we will need to realize the barriers to bedside teaching, both real and imagined, and overcome them. And if we are to become effective bedside teachers, as were our mentors, we will need to sharpen our own physical diagnostic skills. We will need to learn how to be gentle with students and housestaff, how to better communicate with patients, and how to teach ethics and professionalism with the patient at hand.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M A LaCombe. 1997-02-01. On bedside teaching.. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-3-199702010-00007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Common sense and figures: the rhetoric of validity in medicine (Bradford Hill Memorial Lecture 1999).

Austin Bradford Hill was once a friend to The Lancet, but, as occasionally happens, friends fall out. The great legacy of his association with the journal, however, was Principles of Medical Statistics. As each edition was succeeded by another--the first in 1937, the last in 1991--he seemed to shift his view about the influence of statistical method on clinical practice from one of assured certainty to one of modest advantage. That change paralleled a move away from an emphasis on the importance of internal validity in the randomized trial to one of understanding the inescapably practical significance of generalizability. Writers on medical research have explored notions of external validity in various ways. One view, for example, is to seek a close correlation between the participants in a clinical trial and patients seen in practice. The argument goes that such a correspondence has to be made before any decision can be taken about whether to apply the result of that trial to the clinical setting. Another view, first worked out by the American logician Charles Sanders Peirce, is that one must simply rely on the informed guess, based on a reasonable estimate of the limits of extrapolation. The tensions between and implications of these two different approaches are worked through using the example of coronary stents. A solution is, perhaps, to write explicit rules of interpretation that provide a framework for judging the strength of a claim to applicability. Five questions are posed, which try to lay a foundation for such a framework.

Clinical Medicine↗