Interprofessional bedside rounding improves quality of feedback to resident physicians

Area of Science:

• Medical Education Research
• Internal Medicine Residency Training
• Healthcare Quality Improvement

Background:

• High-quality feedback in residency education is crucial but often limited by faculty observation opportunities.
• Current inpatient teaching rounds may not fully capture resident performance in authentic clinical settings.
• Developing effective methods for faculty to observe and evaluate residents is an ongoing challenge.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the impact of interprofessional bedside rounds (iPACE™) on faculty narrative evaluations.
• To compare the length and quality of evaluations from the iPACE™ model versus usual inpatient teaching rounds.
• To determine if iPACE™ enhances the feedback provided to Internal Medicine residents.

Main Methods:

• A deductive content analysis approach was used to review narrative comments from faculty evaluations.
• Evaluations from Internal Medicine residents on both usual teaching and iPACE™ services (2017-2020) were included.
• Data included 692 evaluations from 63 attendings assessing 103 residents.

Main Results:

• iPACE™ evaluations were significantly longer (109 vs. 69 words) than those from usual teams.
• iPACE™ evaluations showed higher occurrences of direct patient/family interaction observations (0.72 vs. 0.32).
• Feedback within iPACE™ evaluations was richer, with more references to interprofessionalism and specific, actionable, corrective comments.

Conclusions:

• The iPACE™ model positively influences the quantity and quality of faculty narrative feedback for residents.
• Prioritizing interprofessional bedside rounds enhances the detail and usefulness of resident evaluations.
• This study supports the iPACE™ approach as a valuable tool for improving medical education feedback.