Assessing the Efficacy of Clinical Rounds for Medical Learners at Different Educational Levels Using Clinical Training Models: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Document Type : Original Article(s)

Authors

1 Professor, Medical Education Research Center, Department of Medical Education, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Afzalipour Hospital, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.

3 Professor, Isfahan Gastroenterology and Hepatology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

4 Instructor, Sirjan School of Medical Sciences, Sirjan, Iran

5 Assistant Professor, Education Development Center, Sirjan School of Medical Sciences, Sirjan, Iran

10.48305/jims.v43.i806.0167

Abstract

Background: Clinical education is a fundamental component of medical students' training curricula. A significant portion of clinical learning occurs during bedside rounds. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of clinical rounds using various clinical education models among medical students.
Methods: This single-group quasi-experimental study included 37 medical students and 8 clinical instructors, selected via census sampling, at Afzalipour Hospital, Kerman University of Medical Sciences. The research employed four educational models: the supervision model, the demonstration model, the report-back model, and the division model, implemented during pediatric rotations (neurology, endocrinology, and neonatology). To evaluate the intervention's effectiveness, participants completed pre- and post-test surveys and provided insights through semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests, while qualitative data were examined through conventional content analysis.
Findings: Findings revealed a significant difference between pre-test (74.4 ± 9.08) and post-test (87.2 ± 9.01) scores (Z = -4.135, P < 0.0001, with a substantial effect size of r = 0.48). Qualitative analysis highlighted benefits (11 categories) and drawbacks (4 categories) of the new educational approach, as well as factors influencing the implementation of educational models (4 categories).
Conclusion: The new small-group teaching approach promoted peer learning, enhanced teamwork and self-directed learning skills, increased motivation, facilitated deep and sustained knowledge retention, and improved clinical reasoning and critical thinking abilities.

Highlights

Nikoo Yamani: Google Scholar, PubMed

Bahareh Bahmanbijari: Google Scholar, PubMed

Peyman Adibi: Google Scholar, PubMed

Mozhdeh Delzendeh: Google Scholar

Amin Beigzadeh: Google Scholar, PubMed

Keywords

References

  1. Esmaeili M, Haghdoost AA, Beigzadeh A, Bahmanbijari B, Bazrafshan A. Personal and Scientific Characteristics of Positive and Negative Role Models among Medical Educators from the Viewpoint of Dentistry and Pharmacy Students in Kerman University of Medical Sciences Iran. Strides in Development of Medical Education 2013; 10(3): 298-311.
  2. Dent J, Harden RM, Hunt D. A practical guide for medical teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2021.
  3. Beigzadeh A, Yamani N, Sharifpoor E, Bahaadinbeigy K, Adibi P. Teaching and learning in clinical rounds: a qualitative meta-analysis. Journal of Emergency Practice and Trauma 2021; 7(1): 46-55.
  4. Yamani N, Delzendeh M, Adibi P, Beigzadeh A. An educational model to teach at the bedside: A qualitative exploratory descriptive study. Res Dev Med Educ 2023; 12: 25.
  5. Amin Beigzadeh, Nikoo Yamani, Kambiz Bahaadinbeigy, Peyman Adibi. Challenges and strategies of clinical rounds from the perspective of medical students: A qualitative research. J Educ Health Promot 2021; 10: 6.
  6. Beigzadeh A, Yamani N, Bahaadinbeigy K, Adibi P. Challenges and problems of clinical medical education in iran: a systematic review of the literature [in Persian]. Strides in Development of Medical Education 2019; 16(1).
  7. Khalaf Z, Khan S. Education During ward rounds: systematic review. Interact J Med Res 2022; 11(2): e40580.
  8. Le KDR, Downie E, Azidis-Yates E, Shaw C. The impact of simulated ward rounds on the clinical education of final-year medical students: a systematic review. International Medical Education. 2024; 3(1): 100-15.
  9. Cox K. Planning bedside teaching--1. Overview. Med J Aust 1993; 158(4): 280-2.
  10. Garout M, Nuqali A, Alhazmi A, Almoallim H. Bedside teaching: the meeting-to-meeting model. Creative Education 2016; 7(11): 1545.
  11. Janicik RW, Fletcher KE. Teaching at the bedside: a new model. Medical teacher. 2003;25(2):127-30.
  12. Quigley PD, Potisek NM, Barone MA. How to “ENGAGE” multilevel learner groups in the clinical setting. Pediatrics 2017; 140(5): e20172861.
  13. Stickrath C, Aagaard E, Anderson M. MiPLAN: a learner-centered model for bedside teaching in today’s academic medical centers. Acad Med 2013; 88(3): 322-7.
  14. Beigzadeh A, Adibi P, Bahaadinbeigy K, Yamani N. Strategies for teaching in clinical rounds: A systematic review of the literature. J Res Med Sci 2019; 24(1): 33.
  15. Beigzadeh A, Yamani N, Adibi P, Bahaadinbeigy K. Strategies for clinical medical education in iran: a systematic review. Strides in Development of Medical Education. 2020; 17(1): 1-9.
  16. Nilsson MS, Pennbrant S, Pilhammar E, Wenestam C-G. Pedagogical strategies used in clinical medical education: an observational study. BMC Med Educ 2010; 10: 9.
  17. Adeoye‐Olatunde OA, Olenik NL. Research and scholarly methods: Semi‐structured interviews. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy 2021; 4(10): 1358-67.
  18. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15(9): 1277-88.
  19. Huttunen R, Kakkori L. Heidegger's theory of truth and its importance for the quality of qualitative research. J Philos Educ 2020; 54(3): 600-16.
  20. Gong J, Ruan M, Yang W, Peng M, Wang Z, Ouyang L, et al. Application of blended learning approach in clinical skills to stimulate active learning attitudes and improve clinical practice among medical students. PeerJ 2021; 9: e11690.
  21. Sukumar S, Zakaria A, Lai CJ, Sakumoto M, Khanna R, Choi N. Designing and implementing a novel virtual rounds curriculum for medical students' internal medicine clerkship during the COVID-19 pandemic. MedEdPORTAL 2021; 17: 11106.
  22. Hyde JS. The gender similarities hypothesis. Am Psychol 2005; 60(6): 581-92.
  23. Gurian M, Stevens K. Boys and girls learn differently. Chichester; 2002.
  24. Harden RM. Outcome-based education: the future is today. Med Teach 2007; 29(7): 625-9.
  25. Ricotta DN, Richards JB, Atkins KM, Hayes MM, McOwen K, Soffler MI, et al. Self-directed learning in medical education: training for a lifetime of discovery. Teach Learn Med 2022; 34(5): 530-40.
  26. Ramani S. Twelve tips to improve bedside teaching. Med Teach 2003; 25(2): 112-5.
  27. MolaHadi M. Importance of clinical educating in nursery [in Persian]. Educ Strategy Med Sci 2010; 2(4): 153-9.
  28. Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Teaching and learning in medical education: how theory can inform practice: Association for the Study of Medical Education; 2000. Available from: https://medicine.usask.ca/facultydev/documents/understanding-medical-education-chapter-2-teaching-and-learning-in-medical-education-1-1.pdf
  29. Harden R. Essential skills for a medical teacher: an introduction to teaching and learning in medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020.
  30. Fernandes S, Araújo AM, Miguel I, Abelha M. Teacher professional development in higher education: the impact of pedagogical training perceived by teachers. Educ. Sci 2023; 13(3): 309.
  31. Bhatia K, Takayesu JK, Nadel ES. A novel mentorship programme for residents integrating academic development, clinical teaching and graduate medical education assessment. Perspect Med Educ 2016; 5(1): 56-9.
  32. Heydari S, Beigzadeh A. Medical students’ perspectives of reflection for their professional development. BMC Med Educ 2024; 24(1): 1399.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 43, Issue 806
2nd Week, May
May and June 2025
Pages 167-177

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 September 2024
  • Accept Date: 15 March 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics