Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 9743776

Structuring ward rounds for learning: can opportunities be created?

Abstract

This paper explores the ways in which ward rounds can be conducted to maximize educational opportunities, as part of a project to improve the effectiveness of on-the-job training (OJT) for hospital doctors. Ninety ward rounds taken by 24 trainers in the Anglia region were observed. Each observation produced a note of the ward round's structure and routines and of the contributions made to it by trainers and trainees. Teaching was a feature of all ward rounds and different types of rounds were valued for different reasons. A range of ward round structures was observed and, within each, a range of routines for conducting the round. Ward round structures fell into four categories, with almost three-quarters of trainers making no use of either pre- or post-round meetings. Where such meetings took place, however, opportunities for OJT were created and, in some cases, optimized through routines to encourage trainee contributions. Discussion time away from patients structured into ward rounds enabled trainers and trainees to take advantage of many opportunities to learn from service. Although unplanned and unsystematic opportunities for OJT do arise, far more reliable are those created through systematic planning and preparation. Trainers have choices to make about how they conduct ward rounds and by choosing to make use of pre- and/or post-ward round sessions, valuable opportunities for OJT can be created.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Stanley. 1998. Structuring ward rounds for learning: can opportunities be created?. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00201.x

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗