Current status of medical grand rounds in departments of medicine at US medical schools

Paul Mueller, Colin M. Segovis, Scott C. Litin, Thomas Matthew Habermann, Thomas A. Parrino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the status of medical grand rounds (MGR) as an educational endeavor. METHODS: A survey of 133 departments of medicine at US medical schools was performed from September 2003 to March 2004; the results were compared with those of a previous (1988) survey. RESULTS: Ninety-nine departments (74%) responded to the survey; all 99 conducted MGR. Providing updates in diagnosis, treatment, and medical research, educating house staff and faculty, and promoting collegiality were the most important objectives of MGR. Regarding objectives, responses to the current survey differed significantly from the responses to the 1988 survey for providing updates in medical research (P=.047), providing continuing medical education credit (P<.001), educating house staff (P=.043), and educating faculty (P<.001); the differences were primarily due to higher proportions of current survey respondents rating these objectives as "quite" or "very" important. The most common format was the didactic lecture. Case presentations were uncommonly used, and patients were rarely present. Only 44% of departments used educational needs assessments, and only 13% assessed knowledge gained by attendees. Feedback was irregularly provided to presenters. Most departments (64%) relied on industry to pay for MGR. lack of presenter-attendee interaction and conflicting meetings were cited as important challenges. Nevertheless, most (62%) of the current survey respondents thought the quality of MGR had increased. CONCLUSIONS: Departments of medicine regard MGR as an important educational and social endeavor. However, most departments use suboptimal teaching, planning, and evaluation methods, and many rely on industry to pay for MGR. Addressing these concerns and other challenges may enhance the value of MGR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)313-321
Number of pages9
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume81
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Teaching Rounds
Medical Schools
Medicine
Internship and Residency
Biomedical Research
Industry
Surveys and Questionnaires
Continuing Medical Education
Needs Assessment
Teaching

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Current status of medical grand rounds in departments of medicine at US medical schools. / Mueller, Paul; Segovis, Colin M.; Litin, Scott C.; Habermann, Thomas Matthew; Parrino, Thomas A.

In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 81, No. 3, 2006, p. 313-321.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mueller, Paul ; Segovis, Colin M. ; Litin, Scott C. ; Habermann, Thomas Matthew ; Parrino, Thomas A. / Current status of medical grand rounds in departments of medicine at US medical schools. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2006 ; Vol. 81, No. 3. pp. 313-321.
@article{7795397a46a84186af0c2ce9597ba965,
title = "Current status of medical grand rounds in departments of medicine at US medical schools",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To assess the status of medical grand rounds (MGR) as an educational endeavor. METHODS: A survey of 133 departments of medicine at US medical schools was performed from September 2003 to March 2004; the results were compared with those of a previous (1988) survey. RESULTS: Ninety-nine departments (74{\%}) responded to the survey; all 99 conducted MGR. Providing updates in diagnosis, treatment, and medical research, educating house staff and faculty, and promoting collegiality were the most important objectives of MGR. Regarding objectives, responses to the current survey differed significantly from the responses to the 1988 survey for providing updates in medical research (P=.047), providing continuing medical education credit (P<.001), educating house staff (P=.043), and educating faculty (P<.001); the differences were primarily due to higher proportions of current survey respondents rating these objectives as {"}quite{"} or {"}very{"} important. The most common format was the didactic lecture. Case presentations were uncommonly used, and patients were rarely present. Only 44{\%} of departments used educational needs assessments, and only 13{\%} assessed knowledge gained by attendees. Feedback was irregularly provided to presenters. Most departments (64{\%}) relied on industry to pay for MGR. lack of presenter-attendee interaction and conflicting meetings were cited as important challenges. Nevertheless, most (62{\%}) of the current survey respondents thought the quality of MGR had increased. CONCLUSIONS: Departments of medicine regard MGR as an important educational and social endeavor. However, most departments use suboptimal teaching, planning, and evaluation methods, and many rely on industry to pay for MGR. Addressing these concerns and other challenges may enhance the value of MGR.",
author = "Paul Mueller and Segovis, {Colin M.} and Litin, {Scott C.} and Habermann, {Thomas Matthew} and Parrino, {Thomas A.}",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.4065/81.3.313",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "81",
pages = "313--321",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Current status of medical grand rounds in departments of medicine at US medical schools

AU - Mueller, Paul

AU - Segovis, Colin M.

AU - Litin, Scott C.

AU - Habermann, Thomas Matthew

AU - Parrino, Thomas A.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess the status of medical grand rounds (MGR) as an educational endeavor. METHODS: A survey of 133 departments of medicine at US medical schools was performed from September 2003 to March 2004; the results were compared with those of a previous (1988) survey. RESULTS: Ninety-nine departments (74%) responded to the survey; all 99 conducted MGR. Providing updates in diagnosis, treatment, and medical research, educating house staff and faculty, and promoting collegiality were the most important objectives of MGR. Regarding objectives, responses to the current survey differed significantly from the responses to the 1988 survey for providing updates in medical research (P=.047), providing continuing medical education credit (P<.001), educating house staff (P=.043), and educating faculty (P<.001); the differences were primarily due to higher proportions of current survey respondents rating these objectives as "quite" or "very" important. The most common format was the didactic lecture. Case presentations were uncommonly used, and patients were rarely present. Only 44% of departments used educational needs assessments, and only 13% assessed knowledge gained by attendees. Feedback was irregularly provided to presenters. Most departments (64%) relied on industry to pay for MGR. lack of presenter-attendee interaction and conflicting meetings were cited as important challenges. Nevertheless, most (62%) of the current survey respondents thought the quality of MGR had increased. CONCLUSIONS: Departments of medicine regard MGR as an important educational and social endeavor. However, most departments use suboptimal teaching, planning, and evaluation methods, and many rely on industry to pay for MGR. Addressing these concerns and other challenges may enhance the value of MGR.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To assess the status of medical grand rounds (MGR) as an educational endeavor. METHODS: A survey of 133 departments of medicine at US medical schools was performed from September 2003 to March 2004; the results were compared with those of a previous (1988) survey. RESULTS: Ninety-nine departments (74%) responded to the survey; all 99 conducted MGR. Providing updates in diagnosis, treatment, and medical research, educating house staff and faculty, and promoting collegiality were the most important objectives of MGR. Regarding objectives, responses to the current survey differed significantly from the responses to the 1988 survey for providing updates in medical research (P=.047), providing continuing medical education credit (P<.001), educating house staff (P=.043), and educating faculty (P<.001); the differences were primarily due to higher proportions of current survey respondents rating these objectives as "quite" or "very" important. The most common format was the didactic lecture. Case presentations were uncommonly used, and patients were rarely present. Only 44% of departments used educational needs assessments, and only 13% assessed knowledge gained by attendees. Feedback was irregularly provided to presenters. Most departments (64%) relied on industry to pay for MGR. lack of presenter-attendee interaction and conflicting meetings were cited as important challenges. Nevertheless, most (62%) of the current survey respondents thought the quality of MGR had increased. CONCLUSIONS: Departments of medicine regard MGR as an important educational and social endeavor. However, most departments use suboptimal teaching, planning, and evaluation methods, and many rely on industry to pay for MGR. Addressing these concerns and other challenges may enhance the value of MGR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33644676156&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33644676156&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4065/81.3.313

DO - 10.4065/81.3.313

M3 - Article

VL - 81

SP - 313

EP - 321

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 3

ER -