Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Enhancing the educational experience provided by ward rounds requires an understanding of current perceptions of the educational value of rounds. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examines perceptions of education in ward rounds, educational activities in ward rounds, barriers to learning, and perceptions of simulation-based ward rounds. METHODS: The 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE (EBSCO), Cochrane, and Scopus were searched on May 29, 2022, for studies assessing learning during ward rounds. The search terms included "ward rounds," "education," and "trainees." Then, the selected articles were reference searched. In total, 354 articles were retrieved. The articles were assessed for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers who screened titles, abstracts, and full-length texts. Articles addressing trainees' education in all ward rounds were included. Articles were excluded if they were specific to certain disciplines, were reviews, were not published in scholarly journals, were published before 2015, were published in languages other than English, or did not concern human participants. Following the removal of 63 duplicates, a total of 268 articles were excluded. The risk of bias within the selected articles was also assessed via the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative research. Qualitative data were used to describe results in a narrative synthesis and in tables. RESULTS: A total of 23 articles were included. Perceptions of teaching in rounds were addressed by 6 studies, of which 3 showed negative perceptions among participants, 2 reported ambivalent perceptions, and 1 showed positive perceptions. Perceived barriers to teaching during rounds were assessed by 7 studies. The reported barriers included time constraints, workloads, schedules, interruptions, the service-oriented nature of rounds, the lack of feedback, hierarchies, the lack of opportunities to ask questions and be engaged in patient management, and divergent learner needs. Further, 8 studies identified types of educational activities, including observation, patient-specific teaching, and discussion. Perceptions of learning through simulated ward rounds were assessed by 8 studies, and a consensus of satisfaction was noted among learners. The interventions that were explored to improve education included using teaching frameworks, involving clinical librarians, and changing the setting of ward rounds. CONCLUSIONS: The main limitations of this review are the predominant use of qualitative data in the included articles and the lack of standardization for the educational compositions of ward rounds among articles, which made the articles hard to compare. In conclusion, learning opportunities in ward rounds are often missed, and trainees perceive rounds to have low educational value. It is important to recognize the barriers to education during ward rounds and address them to maximize the benefits of ward rounds. Finally, there is a need to develop plans that incorporate teaching regularly during ward rounds in the inpatient setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022337736; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=337736.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,080 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».