MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns of interaction during rounds: implications for work‐based learning

2010· article· en· W1925057988 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer M Walton, Yvonne Steinert

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyData collectionDescriptive statisticsPsychologyMedical educationExploratory analysisMedicineFamily medicineNursingComputer scienceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES In-patient rounds are a major educational and patient care-related activity in teaching hospitals. This exploratory study was conducted to gain better understanding of team interactions during rounds and to assess student and resident perceptions of the utility of this activity. METHODS Data were collected by a non-participant observer using a novel, personal digital assistant (PDA)-based data collection system. Medical students and residents completed surveys related to the utility of rounds for patient care, education and ward administration. Analyses included descriptive and correlational statistics and the use of social network analysis to describe and measure patterns of interaction. RESULTS Eighteen different rounds were observed. On average, rounds were 106 minutes long and included discussion of 22.1 patients. Three different patterns of verbal interaction were observed. In most cases, the attending physician was most talkative and many students and residents spoke infrequently. More time was devoted to patients discussed earlier in the round, regardless of diagnosis. Observed teaching was primarily factual and teacher-centred. Attending physician-dominated sessions were rated more highly for educational utility than those that were more interactive. CONCLUSIONS In-patient rounds are an example of an opportunity for powerful work-based learning. In this study, we used a novel method of observational data collection and analysis to examine this activity and found that it may not always live up to its educational potential. Rounds are time-consuming and are generally dominated by the attending physician. Individuals who are not directly involved in a case are often minimally involved. Participants felt that rounds were most useful for patient care and, contrary to expectations, students and residents viewed attending physician-dominated sessions as more educational. To improve the educational impact of rounds, the order of patient discussion should be planned to highlight specific teaching points, preceptors (teaching staff) should ensure that all team members are actively engaged in the process and learning should be made explicit.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207