Interprofessional bedside rounding improves quality of feedback to resident physicians

Abstract

Purpose Obtaining high quality feedback in residency education is challenging, in part due to limited opportunities for faculty observation of authentic clinical work. This study reviewed the impact of interprofessional bedside rounds (‘iPACE™’) on the length and quality of faculty narrative evaluations of residents as compared to usual inpatient teaching rounds. Methods Narrative comments from faculty evaluations of Internal Medicine (IM) residents both on usual teaching service as well as the iPACE™ service (spanning 2017–2020) were reviewed and coded using a deductive content analysis approach. Results Six hundred ninety-two narrative evaluations by 63 attendings of 103 residents were included. Evaluations of iPACE™ residents were significantly longer than those of residents on usual teams (109 vs. 69 words, p < 0.001). iPACE™ evaluations contained a higher average occurrence of direct observations of patient/family interactions (0.72 vs. 0.32, p < 0.001), references to interprofessionalism (0.17 vs. 0.05, p < 0.001), as well as specific (3.21 vs. 2.26, p < 0.001), actionable (1.01 vs. 0.69, p < 0.001), and corrective feedback (1.2 vs. 0.88, p = 0.001) per evaluation. Conclusions This study suggests that the iPACE™ model, which prioritizes interprofessional bedside rounds, had a positive impact on the quantity and quality of feedback, as measured via narrative comments on weekly evaluations.