Teaching methods used by internal medicine residents on rounds: what works?

Figures & data

Figure 1 Observer checklist.

Table 1 Mean teaching ratings compared by teaching encounter variables and selected teaching methods

N=28 encounters (136 surveys in total)	Question 1a Mean (SD) score	P-valueb	Question 2c Mean (SD) score	P-valueb
Teaching encounter variables
PGY
PGY-3 (n=12)	1.17 (0.2)	0.01	1.23 (0.3)	0.005
PGY-2 (n=16)	1.47 (0.4)	0.033	1.57 (0.4)	0.09
Length of time (minutes)
>1 (n=22)	1.26 (0.3)	0.005	1.35 (0.4)	0.004
<1 (n=6)	1.60 (0.4)	0.36	1.66 (0.5)	0.14
Time during academic year
Before October 15 (n=19)	1.21 (0.2)	0.18	1.24 (0.2)	0.13
After October 15 (n=9)	1.59 (0.5)	0.42	1.78 (0.5)	0.097
Teaching methods
Teaching resident asked questions of PGY-1 residents
Yes (n=22)	1.27 (0.3)		1.36 (0.4)
No (n=6)	1.56 (0.4)		1.56 (0.4)
Use of teaching aids, slides, or handouts
Yes (n=19)	1.28 (0.3)		1.32 (0.3)
No (n=9)	1.45 (0.4)		1.59 (0.5)
Integrated into discussion of specific patient
Yes (n=16)	1.30 (0.4)		1.32 (0.4)
No (n=12)	1.37 (0.3)		1.51 (0.4)

Notes:

a Question 1: “Overall, how would you rate this teaching encounter?” (1=“Excellent” and 5=“Poor”).

b P-values were calculated using Mann–Whitney U test and were considered significant if <0.05. Significant values appear in bold.

c Question 2: “How helpful was this teaching encounter in covering the topic(s) presented?” (1=“Extremely helpful” and 5=“Not helpful”).

Abbreviation: PGY, postgraduate year.

Table 2 Summary of qualitative free-text responses

Core positive attributes of teaching encounters
Themes	Number of comments	Representative comments
Immediate clinical relevance	27	“Clear take home point”; “extremely succinct and clear real-life application”; “practical”; “very applicable to patient”; “very relevant, while we’re talking about it”; “cool application to current patient”; “pearls delivered”; “changes management”
Citing published evidence	22	“Great interactive style, evidence based, easy to understand”; “evidence based, got people involved”; “data to support what we do”
Conciseness	18	“Short, digestible information”; “very clear, concise”; “relevant and succinct”; “quick, patient-centered”; “short and sweet”
Clarity	14	“Tight scope of topic”; “systematic, clear”
Pertinence to the patient	14	“Quick, patient-centered”; “pertinent to my patient”