A review of a surgical ward round in a large paediatric hospital: does it achieve its aims?
Abstract
The review which this paper outlines aimed to explore whether the ward round of the surgical team at Birmingham Children's Hospital achieved its objectives and to investigate the attitudes of medical and nursing staff, patients and their parents towards the round. Initial open-ended interviews generated themes from which questionnaires were constructed and administered to 16 members of the surgical team, 30 nurses, 14 patients and 24 parents. The surgical team generally felt that the round plays a valuable role whereas the nursing team expressed dissatisfaction with many aspects of the round. The majority of the surgical and nursing team thought that the round should change from its present form and a number of suggestions were made as to how changes in the round could improve the quality of the teaching experience and promote quality in patient care. Patients tended to express rather neutral feelings towards the round although a significant minority of parents expressed concerns over confidentiality and the level of anxiety felt by children. It is hoped that the results of this review will be used to inform changes in the way the round is carried out. A further review will be initiated in the future to evaluate the efficacy of any such changes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Inclusion of other medical professionals in medical rounds would give alternative and broader conceptualisations of patients' needs.
“It is suggested that the inclusion of other medical professionals in the process would give alternative and broader conceptualisations of patients' needs.”
From Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us? (2017) · cites this paper as Birtwistle, Houghton & Rostill 2000
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us?
Philpott, C., & Oates, C. (2017) · Professional Development in Education · doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1180316 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
- Authors
- Birtwistle, L., Houghton, J. M., & Rostill, H.
- Affiliations
- Birmingham Children's Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Birtwistle, Laura
- ORCID
- Rostill, Helen
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 398-403
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2062821922
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Keywords
- surgical ward rounds, pediatric surgery, surgical training, nursing attitudes, employee attitudes, confidentiality, childhood anxiety, quality of care
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, England, Humans, Medical Staff, Hospital, Parents, Pediatrics, Physician-Patient Relations, General Surgery, Teaching, Patient Satisfaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review