Abstract Background Paediatric learners experience the bulk of their inpatient medicine on the wards. While bedside teaching is invaluable, ward learning can be impacted by seasonal exposure, clinical homogeneity, and volume. Locally our learners requested more formal ward teaching to encourage dialogue around common topics perhaps not encountered on rotation. We queried whether having a database of interactive guideline-based educational experiences would minimize barriers (eg. time, resources) to providing formal inpatient learner education. Objectives We sought to enhance general paediatrics ward teaching by developing a curriculum of guideline-based interactive educational content on common inpatient paediatric topics. Design/Methods This study was conducted at a Canadian tertiary care paediatric hospital with a range of learners (MSI3, MSI4, paediatric residents (R1-R4)) over 12 months. 1) Needs Assessment: We surveyed residents, hospitalist fellows, and CTU physicians regarding a) perceived need for a curriculum, b) content (top 5 CPS guidelines and top 5 non-CPS topics), c) teaching modality, d) need for handouts, and e) curriculum structure. 2) Curriculum generation: Curriculum was developed according to needs assessment results. 3) Quality improvement: Learners were surveyed after each session with four Likert scale questions (5=strongly agree) regarding teaching quality, clinical translatability, enhanced knowledge/understanding, and improved clinical confidence. Results 1) Needs assessment: Needs assessment (N=25) unanimously supported a structured curriculum. Eleven CPS statements and twelve non-CPS guideline-based topics were identified for content. Three preferred teaching formats were highlighted, and handouts were important to 88% of respondents. The curriculum was favoured to be 50-75% standardized. 2) Curriculum generation: We developed a curriculum of 13 topics with different delivery modalities (e.g. case-based powerpoints, whiteboard talks, Jeopardy, simulation). All were guideline-based, interactive, and had fill-in-the-blank learner handouts. The curriculum was standardized with 4/6 CTU teaching sessions per block being derived from the curriculum bank, and the remainder being at educator discretion (e.g. curriculum bank, interesting case). 3) Quality improvement: Likert scales (5=strongly agree) were positive from all learners (MSI3-R4; N=52), with scores of 4.9+/-0.2 for teaching quality, translatability to practice, and improved understanding, and 4.8+/-0.3 for improved clinical confidence. Conclusion Here we present an interactive and guideline-based paediatric inpatient learner education curriculum whose development, from content to delivery modality, was directed by community needs. We are now seeking funding to prepare for national distribution (e.g. peer-review, licensure), and intend to publish on platform where the curriculum would be downloadable for use by all educators (i.e. senior residents, staff).