Search

Objective Pediatrics rotations may be medical students’ only experience with patient- and family-centered rounding (PFCR). It is unclear how students participate in or are prepared for PFCR. We surveyed national pediatrics clerkships to determine the prevalence of PFCR and the proportion providing orientation in order to inform a needs assessment for PFCR orientation. Methods A 5-item peer-reviewed survey was distributed to the Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics (COMSEP) membership as part of a larger survey in 2017. Institutional differences among programs performing PFCR were compared using chi-square and t-tests. Responses to 1 open-ended question were coded and grouped into broad categories using content analysis. Results The full COMSEP survey received answers from 190 participants representing 103 medical schools. Our questions received 174 responses representing 94 schools (98 training sites) and had an 85% (83/98) prevalence of student PFCR participation. Although most (n = 108; 85%) reported that their students received PFCR orientation, half (n = 62; 49%) considered orientation “informal,” and only 2 reported using published curricula. After didactics, the most common orientation materials were handouts (n = 33; 26%), videos (n = 13; 10%), and role play (n = 7; 6%). Orientation was most commonly initiated at the start of clerkship (n = 62; 49%) by clerkship administration (n = 38; 30%), but 20% (n = 26) reported resident-led orientation. Qualitative responses (n = 98) were coded and organized into 4 themes; the greatest perceived challenges for medical students on PFCR were communication and anxiety. Conclusions Although most students participate in and receive orientation to PFCR, there is wide variability in the content, timing, and administration of orientation. A nationally disseminated, evidence-based orientation curriculum may reduce educational variability and better prepare students for PFCR.

Objective To explore pediatric interns' perspectives on the educational value of general pediatric ward rounds, in particular their rounding experiences with and without an attending physician. Methods Qualitative study using individual interviews of pediatric interns (2013–2014) rotating on 2 general pediatric inpatient services at different institutions with different rounding team structures. In accordance with grounded theory methodology, data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Codes were built using an iterative approach and organized into themes. Results Twenty pediatric interns participated in 25 interviews. Data analysis yielded 4 themes: what is being learned; learning environment on rounds; learning and work; and ways of learning. Senior residents generally taught practical aspects of patient care and attending physicians taught broader concepts with references to the medical literature. Rounds without an attending physician were perceived as less formal and promoted collaborative discussions with senior residents. Interns were more uncomfortable during rounds with an attending physician but appreciated how that facilitated their learning. Although patient care tasks provided opportunities for experiential learning, interns frequently perceived them to impede learning during rounds. Intern learning during ward rounds occurred via self-directed learning, interactive learning, and through caring for patients. Brief, clinically relevant teaching pearls and questioning clinical reasoning in a respectful manner were helpful. Conclusions Interns learn different content and learn in different ways depending on the presence or absence of an attending physician at rounds. There might be educational value from rounding with teams that include and do not include an attending physician.

Objective To characterize Latino families' experiences with family-centered rounds at an academic children's hospital to identify areas for improvement. Methods Five focus groups of families of Latino children hospitalized on a general medical ward were conducted in Spanish by a single bilingual facilitator. Participants were recruited from a convenience sample of Spanish-speaking Latino family members present at the patients' bedside. Data were transcribed verbatim, content coded, and analyzed in Spanish for emergent themes. Results Twenty-eight Latino family members of 21 hospitalized children participated in the 5 focus groups. Most spoke only Spanish (75%), and Spanish was the preferred language of all focus group participants. Qualitative data analysis indicated that families reported positive experiences with rounds involving a Spanish-speaking provider. Thematic issues focused on family-physician communication problems, lack of family empowerment, family and provider participants for family-centered rounds, and cultural needs. Parents were dissatisfied with telephonic interpretation services and preferred a live interpreter in the absence of a fluent, bilingual physician. Many families did not feel empowered to request interpretation assistance or health information; parents often felt embarrassed as a result of their inability to understand the primary language (English) of the care providers. Some parents felt inhibited to express themselves in the presence of other family members. Addressing cultural needs (eg, chaplain support) was appreciated by families. Conclusions Spanish-speaking Latino families are not consistently receiving optimal family-centered rounds. Different strategies are needed to fully engage and empower Latino families.