Internal Medicine Survey Perceptions of Inpatient Internal Medicine Rounding Practices
Poster #: 023
Session/Time: B
Author:
Connor Tembe, MS
Mentor:
Rehan Qayyum, MD, MHS, SFHM, FAHA
Research Type: Educational
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Rounding practices on inpatient, internal medicine services, whether conducted at the bedside, in the hallway, or at the table, represent a cornerstone of both patient care and medical education. Each rounding style carries distinct implications for clinical efficiency, patient engagement, and trainee learning. Bedside rounding is often championed as a patient-centered approach that fosters communication, shared decision-making, and role modeling of clinical reasoning. However, faculty frequently express concerns about its time demands and perceived inefficiency compared with alternative formats. Despite the centrality of rounding to the inpatient experience, limited data exist on how faculty define and balance the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness in this context. To address this gap, we surveyed internal medicine (IM) faculty and trainees to assess perceptions and definitions of effective and efficient rounding practices in an academic setting.
METHODS:
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of internal medicine faculty and trainees using a 27-item mixed-format questionnaire designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative data for mixed method analysis. Survey domains included perceptions of goals of inpatient rounding, definitions of efficiency and effectiveness, preferred rounding formats, and perceived barriers to bedside rounding. Responses were collected anonymously to encourage candid feedback. Quantitative items employed Likert-type scales and categorical response options, while open-ended questions elicited narrative responses. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were used to summarize quantitative data. Open-ended responses were reviewed and coded using a priori, descriptive codes and process codes and thematically categorized to complement quantitative findings.
RESULTS:
A total of 13 participants (11 faculty and 2 trainees) completed the survey (6.5% response rate). The most frequently identified purposes of rounding were to clarify/review treatment plan (33.3%), provide education and patient care (33.3%), and develop and teach trainees (33.3%). The majority of respondents employed a mixture of rounding styles (table, walk, bedside), with 69% utilizing all three and 23% utilizing two methods, and 92.3% incorporating bedside rounding in some capacity. Barriers to effective/efficient rounding included time (20%), location (20%), volume and complexity of patients (33.3%), and other distractions/logistics (26.7%). The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that bedside-rounding facilitates more comprehensive patient assessments compared to table rounding (92.3%) and that it enhances patient engagement and satisfaction (76.9%). Nonetheless, most respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that bedside rounding was more efficient than table rounding for task completion during rounding (61.5%) or that it facilitated more timely completion of rounding (53.8%).
CONCLUSION:
While results are limited by low participation, responses of IM team members demonstrate multiple goals for rounds including clinical care, education, and teaching. While bedside rounding in particular is seen as valuable for patient engagement, comprehensive assessment, and learner development, it is felt to be less efficient for task completion as compared with table or hallway rounding, though all are limited by time constraints, logistical interruptions, and patient volume and complexity. These findings highlight a tension between educational and clinical priorities and underscore the need for targeted strategies to enhance the efficiency and uptake of bedside rounding during internal medicine training.
Rounding practices on inpatient, internal medicine services, whether conducted at the bedside, in the hallway, or at the table, represent a cornerstone of both patient care and medical education. Each rounding style carries distinct implications for clinical efficiency, patient engagement, and trainee learning. Bedside rounding is often championed as a patient-centered approach that fosters communication, shared decision-making, and role modeling of clinical reasoning. However, faculty frequently express concerns about its time demands and perceived inefficiency compared with alternative formats. Despite the centrality of rounding to the inpatient experience, limited data exist on how faculty define and balance the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness in this context. To address this gap, we surveyed internal medicine (IM) faculty and trainees to assess perceptions and definitions of effective and efficient rounding practices in an academic setting.
METHODS:
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of internal medicine faculty and trainees using a 27-item mixed-format questionnaire designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative data for mixed method analysis. Survey domains included perceptions of goals of inpatient rounding, definitions of efficiency and effectiveness, preferred rounding formats, and perceived barriers to bedside rounding. Responses were collected anonymously to encourage candid feedback. Quantitative items employed Likert-type scales and categorical response options, while open-ended questions elicited narrative responses. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were used to summarize quantitative data. Open-ended responses were reviewed and coded using a priori, descriptive codes and process codes and thematically categorized to complement quantitative findings.
RESULTS:
A total of 13 participants (11 faculty and 2 trainees) completed the survey (6.5% response rate). The most frequently identified purposes of rounding were to clarify/review treatment plan (33.3%), provide education and patient care (33.3%), and develop and teach trainees (33.3%). The majority of respondents employed a mixture of rounding styles (table, walk, bedside), with 69% utilizing all three and 23% utilizing two methods, and 92.3% incorporating bedside rounding in some capacity. Barriers to effective/efficient rounding included time (20%), location (20%), volume and complexity of patients (33.3%), and other distractions/logistics (26.7%). The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that bedside-rounding facilitates more comprehensive patient assessments compared to table rounding (92.3%) and that it enhances patient engagement and satisfaction (76.9%). Nonetheless, most respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that bedside rounding was more efficient than table rounding for task completion during rounding (61.5%) or that it facilitated more timely completion of rounding (53.8%).
CONCLUSION:
While results are limited by low participation, responses of IM team members demonstrate multiple goals for rounds including clinical care, education, and teaching. While bedside rounding in particular is seen as valuable for patient engagement, comprehensive assessment, and learner development, it is felt to be less efficient for task completion as compared with table or hallway rounding, though all are limited by time constraints, logistical interruptions, and patient volume and complexity. These findings highlight a tension between educational and clinical priorities and underscore the need for targeted strategies to enhance the efficiency and uptake of bedside rounding during internal medicine training.