key: cord-0032123-ir3kc4cg
authors: Ratelle, John T.; Gallagher, Caitlyn N.; Sawatsky, Adam P.; Kashiwagi, Deanne T.; Schouten, Will M.; Gonzalo, Jed D.; Beckman, Thomas J.; West, Colin P.
title: The Effect of Bedside Rounds on Learning Outcomes in Medical Education: A Systematic Review
date: 2022-01-11
journal: Acad Med
DOI: 10.1097/acm.0000000000004586
sha: c0e8e76619b9622537f554c8205835e04ec0c0d5
doc_id: 32123
cord_uid: ir3kc4cg

To determine if bedside rounds, compared with other forms of hospital ward rounds, improve learning outcomes in medical education. METHOD: 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. RESULTS: 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 the 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

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 physiciansin-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 the 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.

For more than a century, bedside rounds-the process during which a physician-teacher and a learner discuss a hospitalized patient's condition and plan of care in the patient's presence-have been viewed as an ideal learning method in the hospital. [1] [2] [3] The practice of bedside rounds may provide opportunities for skill development, observation and feedback, and teamwork and communication while contributing to a culture of patient-centered care. [4] [5] [6] Additionally, the educational benefits of bedside rounds are rooted in principles of adult learning. For example, the theory of situated cognition emphasizes that learning is inseparable from doing and, by extension, that new knowledge is best acquired in a context where that knowledge can be readily applied. 7 As it applies to hospital ward rounds, situated cognition supports that learning to care for patients is best achieved in the presence of an actual patient.

Despite the rhetorical and theoretical benefits of bedside rounds, recent research has indicated that its use is decreasing. In the mid-20th century, even before the advent of bedside rounds as a specific educational strategy, teaching at the bedside was the norm. 8 However, a 2009 study showed that only 17% of teaching during ward rounds occurred in the patient's room. 9 Time constraints, particularly in the context of resident duty-hour restrictions and an increasing reliance on technology, have driven educators and learners to seek other more "efficient" forms of rounding, such as conference room or hallway rounds. 5, [10] [11] [12] [13] More recently, efforts to reduce COVID-19 exposures, such as physical distancing, made bedside rounds infeasible.

The decline in bedside rounds has led to debate about their role as a teaching method in medical education. Experts and leaders have argued passionately for rounds to return to the bedside. 14, 15 Others, including learners, have questioned the educational benefits of bedside rounds and whether bedside rounds should continue to be viewed as a standard of educational practice. 16, 17 Given the present discourse around bedside rounds, a synthesis of evidence may help define their value in medical education and inform areas for future research. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to answer the following question: in hospital-based settings, do bedside rounds improve learning outcomes compared with other forms of ward rounding in medical education?

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). 18 All steps in the study selection and data abstraction processes requiring subjective judgment were conducted independently and in duplicate by study investigators, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

This systematic review was a planned extension of an existing review to assess the effect of bedside rounds on patientcentered outcomes. 19 With the aid of an experienced medical librarian, we created a search strategy using terms for setting or context (e.g., hospital, hospital medicine, inpatients), activity (e.g., rounds, bedside rounds, presentation), and participants (e.g., attending, resident, intern, medical student). We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from inception through February 20, 2020. Details of our search strategy are available in Supplemental Digital Appendix 1 at http://links.lww.com/ACADMED/B223.

To ensure a comprehensive overview of bedside rounds medical education, we used broad eligibility criteria. Specifically, we selected the following definition of bedside rounds proposed by Gonzalo et al 20 :

A minimum of 2 physicians (including resident/fellow physicians-in-training) performing all 3 of the following in the presence of a hospitalized patient: (1) case presentation/history, (2) performance of at least one physical exam skill, and (3) discussion of the patient's daily plan of care.

We included studies if they (1) used an experimental study design (randomized or quasi-experimental) comparing bedside rounds with any other form of ward rounds, (2) involved medical trainees (graduate or undergraduate), and (3) reported a quantitative learning outcome. Learning outcomes were categorized using a modified version of the framework described by Kirkpatrick and Craig, 21 as follows:

• Level 1: learner reaction (e.g., satisfaction with rounds, satisfaction with teaching);

• Level 2: learner knowledge and skills (e.g., standardized testing scores, performance during a simulated patient encounter);

• Level 3a: learner behavior (performance "with real patients in a clinical context, " 22 e.g., assessment of resident communication at the bedside); and

• Level 3b: health care systems/ processes (e.g., duration of rounds, nurse-physician teamwork).

Given that previous systematic reviews have reported on the effect of bedside rounds on patient outcomes, we decided not to include studies that reported only patient-level (level 4) outcomes. 19 , 23 We reviewed full-text articles and conference abstracts, regardless of language or date of publication. If there was insufficient information to decide on inclusion, we contacted the study authors for clarification.

We created a data abstraction instrument in Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington) based upon related research regarding interventions in hospital wards and medical education. 19, [24] [25] [26] The tool was tested and iteratively refined. Extraction items included year, participants and setting, description of the bedside rounds intervention and its implementation (including cointerventions), evaluation methods, and learning outcomes.

We assessed methodological quality using tools adapted from the risk-ofbias assessment tool for nonrandomized controlled trials 27 and the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials. 28 These tools included assessments in standard categories such as confounding, selection bias, outcome measurement, and selective reporting.

We initially planned to thematically group results within each Kirkpatrick outcome level for quantitative pooling and meta-analysis. However, early in the screening process, we identified a large degree of variability across studies regarding measures, even within similar outcome domains. As such, instead of quantitative pooling, we summarized the extraction elements using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of design, implementation, and outcomes. 18 flow diagram for a systematic review of the literature on the effect of bedside rounds on learning outcomes in medical education, inception to February 2020. a Total exceeds the number of excluded articles because some were excluded for more than 1 reason. b Defined as a quantitative outcome that could be categorized into Kirkpatrick level 1 through level 3b.

Our search strategy yielded 5,576 abstracts, 284 of which underwent fulltext review (see Figure 1 ). Of these, 20 articles met full inclusion criteria. 20, [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Characteristics of the included studies are outlined in Supplemental Digital Appendix 2 at http://links.lww.com/ ACADMED/B223. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (n = 16, 80%) and used a nonrandomized experimental design (n = 13, 65%). All of the studies involved residents (n = 20, 100%), and many also involved medical students (n = 11, 55%). Additionally, many studies were interprofessional (n = 14, 70%) and were conducted on general medicine wards (n = 9, 45%).

The majority of studies (n = 17, 85%) demonstrated a high risk of bias in at least 1 domain, and 7 studies (35%) were at high risk for bias in multiple domains. 31, 32, 39, [41] [42] [43] 45 Supplemental Digital Appendixes 3 and 4 (available at http:// links.lww.com/ACADMED/B223) summarize the methodological quality of the included studies. The 2 most frequent sources of bias were deviation from the intended intervention and selective reporting, which were present in 10 (50%) of the studies. Deviation from the intended intervention was often related to low adherence rates to bedside rounds interventions and unbalanced cointerventions between intervention and control groups. Selective reporting was typically related to reporting 1 of several potential outcome measures and analyses. For example, many studies used surveys as the primary measurement instrument and reported item-level analyses without a prespecified analytic plan.

The structure and process of bedside rounds varied widely among the 18 (90%) studies that described their implementation. For example, McNeil et al described a bedside rounds intervention that involved bedside shift handover between incoming and outgoing emergency resident physicians and had a mean duration of 17.5 minutes per round. 40 Alternatively, Gonzalo et al described a bedside rounds intervention that involved a case presentation from the resident, physical examination, and discussion of the patient's plan of care with an average duration of 16 minutes per patient. 20 In addition to the variability of the process of bedside rounds, there was also variability in how bedside rounds were implemented as part of a broader set of interventions. The majority of studies (n = 13, 65%) implemented bedside rounds with 1 or more cointerventions, including staff education/training (n = 8, 40%), 20 40 learners reported significantly higher satisfaction with the quality of education during bedside rounds.

Four studies (20%) reported an outcome within the domain of learners' knowledge and skills; 2 favored bedside rounds 42, 43 and 2 demonstrated equivocal results (Table 2) . 30, 33 Three of the studies used a subjective measure (i.e., self-reported outcome measures addressing trainees' perception of learning), 30, 33, 42 and the other used an objective measure (i.e., medical students' shelf exam scores). 43 All studies reporting an outcome in the knowledge and skills domain were deemed to be at high risk of bias.

Level 3a: Learner behavior. Eight studies (40%) reported the effect of bedside rounds on learner behavior, with the majority (n = 5, 63%) favoring the bedside rounds intervention while 1 favored control, and 2 were equivocal ( 

Chauke, 2006 32 One hundred percent of residents preferred intervention. Fifty-five percent of medical students preferred the intervention.

Desai, 2013 33 No difference in satisfaction with teaching (% positive response: 67% intervention vs 81% control, P = NS).

Equivocal High Landry, 2007 37 No difference in learners' satisfaction or overall comfort, but lower comfort asking (mean rating [SD]: 69 [17] intervention vs 84 [10] control, P = .001) and being asked questions (67 [17] intervention vs 85 [9] control, P = .001) during intervention.

Monash, 2017 39 Higher ratings of the control on 6 of 9 survey items, including overall satisfaction with rounds, perception of efficiency, autonomy, and amount of teaching.

McNeil, 2015 40 Higher satisfaction with quality of education among learners (mean rating: 59 intervention vs 40 control, P < .0001).

Seo, 2000 47 Most residents (n = 19, 95%) preferred conference room rounds to BR.

Bennett, 2017 30 Higher rating of the intervention on 4 of 6 survey items.

Cao, 2018 31 No difference in health care provider perception of the intervention on 2 of 3 survey items. Equivocal High Gonzalo, 2010 20 Lower perception of educational value among residents (% positive response: 53% intervention vs 78% control, P = .01). No difference in residents' overall satisfaction or rating of perception of efficiency and benefit for patient care.

Krug, 2015 35 No difference in learners' overall satisfaction with rounds or time for bedside teaching. Equivocal High Lewis, 1988 38 The majority of residents preferred the intervention for patient care and the patientphysician relationship, but preferred control for learning. Mixed overall preferences for intervention vs control.

Saint, 2013 43 Higher ratings of attending physicians by residents and medical students in the intervention group.

Schlaudecker, 2012 44 Higher ratings of educational value and overall benefit to residents among learners in the intervention group. 

Abbreviations: BR, bedside rounds; NS, not significant; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SD, standard deviation; SEM, standard error of the mean.

physicians have noted an underlying discomfort during bedside rounds. 6, 11 The reasons cited for preferring to round away from the bedside vary but include worrying about making a mistake and looking incompetent or about causing patient discomfort; lacking freedom to ask questions and discuss particularities of a clinical case; and having concerns regarding efficiency. [48] [49] [50] It is encouraging that the results of this review, and others, 19, 23 provide evidence that bedside rounds do not negatively affect patients or prolong rounds and may, in fact, improve these outcomes. However, understanding learners' internal reluctance will be important if the educational benefits of bedside rounds are to be fully realized.

Our objective at the outset of this review was to answer a pragmatic question asked by many clinician-educators: is the effort of bedside rounds worth it? However, the variable and in some cases weak evidence for bedside rounds suggests that it may be more useful to shift the focus from "do bedside rounds work?" to deeper questions of "when, how, and why do bedside rounds work?" 51 To answer these questions, we suggest that clinician-educators and education researchers apply conceptual frameworks to make sense of the variability in outcomes following bedside rounds.

For example, one way of interpreting the mixed reactions of trainees toward bedside rounds is through the lens of self-determination theory (SDT), a dominant motivational theory in the field of psychology, which posits that motivation (defined here as "the general desire or willingness ... to do something") exists upon a spectrum from amotivation to external motivation to internal motivation. 52 According to SDT, a Higher self-reported rating of ability to address patients' concerns and worries among participants in the intervention.

Schlaudecker, 2012 44 One hundred percent of residents in the intervention group agreed that the intervention enhances their ability to communicate with patients.

Abbreviations: BR, bedside rounds; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SD, standard deviation.

person's motivation for a specific activity is dependent on how that activity meets 3 psychological needs: (1) autonomy, (2) competence, and (3) relatedness, and the greater the degree to which an activity meets these needs, the higher the level of intrinsic motivation a person will have for that activity. 52 Clinical teachers can use the SDT framework to understand and foster learners' motivation to participate in bedside rounds. 53 Specifically, attending physicians should consider using methods that support learners' autonomy, competence, and relatedness during bedside rounds. For instance, to promote a sense of autonomy, support the attending-trainee relationship, and demonstrate respect and partnership in the decision-making process, they could engage learners in a dialogue regarding rounding strategy at the start of a clinical rotation and solicit learners' preferences for rounds. Role modeling the processes of bedside rounds may also drive intrinsic motivation by promoting a sense of competence, particularly for medical students. Identifying additional barriers to and testing facilitators of motivation for bedside rounds are important directions for future research.

The results of this review also reveal that there is wide variability in the design, implementation, and outcomes of bedside rounds. To illustrate, consider the following comparison: the bedside rounds described by McNeil et al 40 involved only physicians and were conducted during shift turnover in an emergency department, whereas the bedside rounds described by Huang et al 34 involved an entire interprofessional health care team and included a checklist of essential safety items and a focus on preparation for dismissal. When considering these disparate structures and processes, it should be no surprise that the outcome measures and results achieved varied. A useful framework for making sense of this variability is the structureprocess-outcome (S-P-O) model of health care quality first described by Avedis Donabedian more than 50 years ago. 54 As the model applies to bedside rounds, the structure of the bedside encounter (e.g., personnel involved, available technology, ergonomics) and the processes occurring during the encounter (e.g., case presentation, safety checklist, physical examination) will directly affect the outcomes achieved.

Viewing bedside rounds through the S-P-O framework suggests that teachers and learners should be careful to clarify the desired learning outcomes of bedside rounds. Physicians and trainees (along with patients and interprofessional health care team members) should ask themselves what they are trying to accomplish in doing bedside rounds. Is the primary goal of this bedside rounds to introduce the patient to new health care team members? Is it to meet with a family caregiver to clarify the nuances of a patient's history of present illness? Is it to ensure that junior trainees learn the proper technique for an important part of the physical examination? By beginning with the end in mind, clinicians, learners, and patients can create a shared mental model of bedside rounds and avoid unnecessary tensions resulting from competing objectives. Once the members of the team have identified that desired outcome, they can work backward to ensure the structure and processes of bedside rounds support it.

This review has limitations. First, we focused specifically on bedside rounds involving physician learners in the hospital setting. As such, our results cannot be applied to other clinical settings (e.g., the outpatient office) or different populations of learners (e.g., nursing or pharmacy students). Second, because bedside rounds are a heterogeneous construct, we made subjective judgments during article selection and data abstraction that may be a source of bias. However, we attempted to mitigate this risk of bias by developing a rigorous article selection and data abstraction process that included duplicate review. Third, we only included articles reporting quantitative learning outcomes and did not evaluate qualitative research studies.

Bedside rounds appear to positively affect learner knowledge and skills, but learners seem to have mixed preferences for bedside rounds compared with other forms of ward rounding. Given the variety of ways that bedside rounds can be implemented, future research should work to identify how specific design features of bedside rounds can be used to facilitate desired learning outcomes.

Bedside teaching in medical education: A literature review

Bedside teaching

The natural method of teaching the subject of medicine

The value of bedside rounds: A multicenter qualitative study

The art of bedside rounds: A multi-center qualitative study of strategies used by experienced bedside teachers

Attending rounds and bedside case presentations: Medical student and medicine resident experiences and attitudes

Situated cognition and the culture of learning

Observations of undergraduate clinical teaching in action

Quantification of bedside teaching by an academic hospitalist group

Whither bedside teaching? A focus-group study of clinical teachers

Identifying and overcoming the barriers to bedside rounds: A multicenter qualitative study

Challenges of the ward round teaching based on the experiences of medical clinical teachers

Bedside teaching in the emergency department

A piece of my mind. Bedside teaching rounds reconsidered

Using bedside rounds to change culture

Questioning family-centered rounds: A pediatric resident's challenge

Improving trainee education during family-centered rounds: A resident's perspective

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Implementing bedside rounds to improve patient-centred outcomes: A systematic review

The return of bedside rounds: An educational intervention

Evaluation of Short-Term Training in Rehabilitation

Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education

Effect of bedside vs. non-bedside patient case presentation during ward rounds: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Structure and outcomes of interdisciplinary rounds in hospitalized medicine patients: A systematic review and suggested taxonomy

Effects of interdisciplinary team care interventions on general medical wards: A systematic review

Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis

RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias Review in non-randomised studies of interventions

Parental presence on neonatal intensive care unit clinical bedside rounds: Randomised trial and focus group discussion

Bringing rounds back to the patient: A one-year evaluation of the chiefs' service model for inpatient teaching

Patientcentered structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds in the medical ICU

Ward rounds-Bedside or conference room? S

Board or walk rounds?

All together now: Impact of a regionalization and bedside rounding initiative on the efficiency and inclusiveness of clinical rounds

E pluribus unum; Interdisciplinary bedside morning rounds on the general medicine wards

Family experiences and pediatric health services use associated with family-centered rounds

A randomized, controlled trial of bedside versus conference-room case presentation in a pediatric intensive care unit

Patient, parent, and physician perspectives on pediatric oncology rounds

Standardized attending rounds to improve the patient experience: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

Bedside rounds versus board rounds in an emergency department

Assessment of pediatric residents' communication and interpersonal skills during family-centered rounds

Family-centered multidisciplinary rounds enhance the team approach in pediatrics

An academic hospitalist model to improve healthcare worker communication and learner education: Results from a quasiexperimental study at a Veterans Affairs medical center

Patient-and family-centered rounds on a geriatric inpatient service: Resident and staff perspectives of bedside rounds

Structured interdisciplinary bedside rounds improve the quality of inter-professional communication on an inpatient general medicine teaching unit

Applying athletic principles to medical rounds to improve teaching and patient care

Impact of medical round on patients' and residents' perceptions at a university hospital in Japan

Rounds today: A qualitative study of internal medicine and pediatrics resident perceptions

Medical student self-efficacy with familycentered care during bedside rounds

Medical student outcomes after familycentered bedside rounds

Learning theory and educational intervention: Producing meaningful evidence of impact through layered analysis

Handbook of Self-Determination Research

How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE guide no. 59

Evaluating the quality of medical care

The authors wish to thank Patricia Erwin, MLS, for creating the search strategy and Danielle Gerberi, MLS, AHIP, for updating the search.Funding/Support: None reported.Other disclosures: None reported.Ethical approval: Reported as not applicable. J.T. Ratelle is assistant professor of medicine, Division of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; ORCID: https://orcid. org/0000-0001-8061-283X.