Bedside teaching.

BACKGROUND: Clinical teachers have been exhorted to "return to the bedside" so that the three critical parties-teacher, trainee, and patient-can participate together in the educational encounter. The presence of the patient is deemed essential for the optimal demonstration and observation of physical examination, medical interviewing, and interpersonal skills, as well as role-modeling professional and humanistic behavior. METHODS: This essay reviews the challenges inherent in bedside teaching and proposes strategies to enhance both the effectiveness and efficiency of such teaching. RESULTS: Practical suggestions are provided regarding teaching issues (time constraints, group accommodation, selectivity, demonstration, observation, case presentations), learning climate for both teacher and learners, hospital and patient barriers, and selected other issues. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in the clinical setting and financing of medical education, patient-centered teaching will remain essential to the training of future clinicians. Techniques described in this paper can be useful in facilitating such bedside teaching.

A prospective study to assess the effect of ambulatory teaching on patient satisfaction.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of ambulatory teaching on patients' satisfaction. METHOD: In 1996, 103 adult patients presenting to the Walter Reed General Medicine Walk-in Clinic completed a patient-satisfaction questionnaire immediately following their visits, during which they were initially seen by a trainee (third-year medical student or intern) and then seen by a faculty preceptor. The questionnaire included five items from the validated Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-9 questionnaire as well as two open-ended questions. Fourteen staff physicians, 13 students (49% of the visits), and 11 interns (51% of the visits) participated in the study. Satisfaction was analyzed by level of training, and the responses from the study patients were compared with the responses from 372 usual-care (i.e., non-teaching) patients from the same clinic, using the chi-squared test. RESULTS: The study patients were typically pleased with their encounters, rating their overall satisfaction as excellent (61%), very good (29%), or good (9%). Nearly two thirds of the patients rated their satisfaction with waiting time to be very good or excellent. Compared with the usual-care patients, the study patients reported equal or greater satisfaction for all five MOS-9 items. Ninety-five percent of the study patients said they would be willing to be seen by a trainee-staff team on future visits. There was no difference in patient satisfaction by trainee level. The study patients cited enhanced interaction (45%), enhanced education (34%), and improved care (26%) as benefits of trainee-involved care, and increased waiting time (18%) and worse care (5%) as drawbacks. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that ambulatory teaching does not adversely affect patient satisfaction, regardless of trainee level, and that patients who have been seen by trainee-staff teams are willing to experience such encounters again.

The adverse effects of hospitalization on drug regimens.

To determine the effect of hospitalization on errors in patients' drug regimens, 157 consecutive patients discharged on regimens of four or more drugs were identified, of whom 94 were eligible for study. Thirty-four (79%) of 43 local patients were interviewed within 1 month after discharge, and 28 (55%) of 51 patients who were mailed a questionnaire responded. Regimen errors were detected in 50% of both groups. Overall, 20 (32%) of 62 patients had incorrectly added or deleted a drug, and 11 (18%) were taking the correct drugs but had errors in dosing. Twelve potentially serious errors were detected. Patients with regimen errors had been discharged taking more drugs (6.1 vs 5.10) and tended to have more drug changes during hospitalization (2.7 vs 1.90). Particular attention should be paid to drug regimens during hospitalization and in subsequent follow-up visits.