| Title |
Asking a Variety of Questions on Walk Rounds: a Pilot Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-018-4381-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helen M. Shields, Stephen R. Pelletier, Christopher L. Roy, James P. Honan |
| Abstract |
Morning walk rounds have lost some of their engagement while remaining a useful and valued practice. We created a pilot study to evaluate the impact on rounds of learning to asking a variety of different questions. One-hour intervention sessions were voluntarily offered to members of the Department of Medicine and taught by an expert in the question, listen, and respond method. Participants included attendings and residents in Internal Medicine on medical teams. Questionnaires were collected on six pre-intervention and six post-intervention days. Nine months later, an anonymous online survey was sent to participants asking about their use of a wider variety of questions. Two hundred eight physicians (residents 175 (45.5%), attending physicians 25 (27.7%)) filled out pre-intervention surveys. One hundred eighty-one physicians (residents 155 (40.3%), attending physicians 18 (20%)) filled out post-intervention surveys. When survey responses from the attendings and residents on the medical teams were combined, post-intervention rounds were perceived as more worthwhile (1.99 pre-intervention and 1.55 post-intervention, [95% confidence interval 1.831-2.143]) (p < 0.001) and more engaging (1.68 pre-intervention and 1.30 post-intervention, [95% confidence interval 1.407-1.688]) (p < 0.001).Non-medical teams' survey responses did not change. Patient census data indicated no significant difference in the hospital's census on the pre- and post-intervention dates. Spontaneous suggestions for improving rounds came largely from the residents and included teaching points, clinical pearls, patient focus, more interactive, increased dedicated time for teaching, inclusive/multidisciplinary, questions, and evidence-based teaching. Of the participants who answered the online survey 9 months later, 75% (6/8) reported that they "actually asked a wider variety of types of questions." This pilot study indicates that the 1-h intervention of learning to ask a variety of different questions is associated with rounds that are rated as more worthwhile and engaging by the medical teams. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 50% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 42% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 35% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,977,402
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,084
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,342
of 333,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#53
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.