What's the Purpose of Rounds? A Qualitative Study Examining the Perceptions of Faculty and Students.

BACKGROUND: Rounds are a critical activity on any inpatient service, but there is little literature describing the purpose of rounds from the perspective of faculty and trainees in teaching hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the perceptions of pediatric and internal medicine attendings and medical students regarding the purpose of inpatient attending rounds. METHODS: The authors conducted 10 semistructured focus groups with attendings and medical students in the spring of 2014 at 4 teaching hospitals. The protocol was approved by the institutional review boards at all institutions. The authors employed a grounded theory approach to data collection and analysis, and data were analyzed by using the constant- comparative method. Two transcripts were read and coded independently by 2 authors to generate themes. RESULTS: Forty-eight attendings and 31 medical students participated in the focus groups. We categorized 218 comments into 4 themes comprised of 16 codes representing what attendings and medical students believed to be the purpose of rounds. These themes included communication, medical education, patient care, and assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight that rounds serve 4 purposes, including communication, medical education, patient care, and assessment. Importantly, both attendings and students agree on what they perceive to be the many purposes of rounds. Despite this, a disconnect appears to exist between what people believe are the purposes of rounds and what is happening during rounds.

Rounds Today: A Qualitative Study of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Resident Perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Attending rounds is a key component of patient care and education at teaching hospitals, yet there is an absence of studies addressing trainees' perceptions of rounds. OBJECTIVE: To determine perceptions of pediatrics and internal medicine residents about the current and ideal purposes of inpatient rounds on hospitalist services. METHODS: In this multi-institutional qualitative study, the authors conducted focus groups with a purposive sample of internal medicine and pediatrics residents at 4 teaching hospitals. The constant comparative method was used to identify themes and codes. RESULTS: The study identified 4 themes: patient care, clinical education, patient/family involvement, and evaluation. Patient care included references to activities on rounds that forwarded care of the patient. Clinical education pertained to teaching/learning on rounds. Patient/family involvement encompassed comments about incorporating patients and families on rounds. Evaluation described residents demonstrating skill for attendings. CONCLUSIONS: Resident perceptions of the purposes of rounds aligned with rounding activities described by prior observational studies of rounds. The influence of time pressures and the divergent needs of participants on today's rounds placed these identified purposes in tension, and led to resident dissatisfaction in the achievement of all of them. Suboptimal congruency exists between perceived resident clinical education and specialty-specific milestones. These findings suggest a need for education of multiple stakeholders by (1) enhancing faculty teaching strategies to maximize clinical education while minimizing inefficiencies; (2) informing residents about the value of patient interactions and family-centered rounds; and (3) educating program directors in proper alignment of inpatient rotational objectives to the milestones.