Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching: A Pilot Study of the Design, Development, and Implementation of Structured Interprofessional Co-Teaching Sessions.

INTRODUCTION: High levels of interprofessional collaboration are beneficial for patients and healthcare providers. Co-teaching may be one method for creating a collaborative environment. This pilot study designed, developed, and implemented Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching on an inpatient medicine service. METHODS: Ten Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching pairs designed 30-minute, structured co-teaching sessions with learning objectives, evidence-based content, interactive teaching strategies and a Take-Away of key content with the help of a coaching team. Each session was presented by a nurse and senior doctor to nurse and resident learners. Our assessment blueprint included: 1. Anonymous surveys assessing the overall rating of each session and 2. Pre- and post-anonymous surveys assessing measures of interprofessional collaboration and communication between nurses and residents before and after the series of ten co-teaching sessions. RESULTS: Data from ten post-session surveys included 121 of 156 participants (77.6%). Attendance at each session ranged from 13-19 participants with 8-17 participants completing a survey per session for an average of 12.1 surveys analyzed. All Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching sessions scored in the excellent range between 1.00 and 1.43 on a Likert scale (1 is excellent and 5 is poor). In response to the question "What did you like best?", interactive teaching strategies was the most frequent spontaneous answer. A significant correlation between the number of interactive teaching strategies and enjoyability of the session (p-value=0.01) was observed. Measures of interprofessional collaboration and communication did not change significantly in the pre-intervention compared to post-intervention period. CONCLUSION: We created a unique model of interprofessional co-teaching on an inpatient service. The overall excellent ratings of our interactive sessions indicate that Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching is a valued form of learning. Our structured format is adaptable to various medical settings and could be expanded to include additional allied health professionals. We plan further studies to assess if Nurse-Doctor Co-Teaching improves measures of interprofessional collaboration.

Is Asking Questions on Rounds a Teachable Skill? A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Attendings' Asking Questions.

BACKGROUND: Morning bedside rounds remain an essential part of Internal Medicine residency education, but rounds vary widely in terms of educational value and learner engagement. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to increase the number and variety of questions asked by attendings at the bedside and assess its impact. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of our intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalist attendings on the general medicine service were invited to participate. Twelve hospitalists were randomized to the experimental group and ten hospitalists to the control group. INTERVENTION: A one-hour interactive session which teaches and models the method of asking questions using a non-medical case, followed by practice using role plays with medical cases. MAIN MEASURES: Our primary outcome was the number of questions asked by attendings during rounds. We used audio-video recordings of rounds evaluated by blinded reviewers to quantify the number of questions asked, and we also recorded the type of question and the person asked. We assessed whether learners found rounds worthwhile using anonymous surveys of residents, patients, and nurses. KEY RESULTS: Blinded analysis of the audio-video recordings demonstrated significantly more questions asked by attendings in the experimental group compared to the control group (mean number of questions 23.5 versus 10.8, p< 0.001) with significantly more questions asked of the residents (p<0.003). Residents rated morning bedside rounds with the experimental attendings as significantly more worthwhile compared to rounds with the control group attendings (p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Our study findings highlight the benefits of a one-hour intervention to teach faculty a method of asking questions during bedside rounds. This educational strategy had the positive outcome of including significantly more resident voices at the bedside. Residents who rounded with attendings in the experimental group were more likely to "strongly agree" that bedside rounds were "worthwhile".

Asking a Variety of Questions on Walk Rounds: a Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Morning walk rounds have lost some of their engagement while remaining a useful and valued practice. AIM: We created a pilot study to evaluate the impact on rounds of learning to asking a variety of different questions. SETTING: One-hour intervention sessions were voluntarily offered to members of the Department of Medicine and taught by an expert in the question, listen, and respond method. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included attendings and residents in Internal Medicine on medical teams. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Questionnaires were collected on six pre-intervention and six post-intervention days. Nine months later, an anonymous online survey was sent to participants asking about their use of a wider variety of questions. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Two hundred eight physicians (residents 175 (45.5%), attending physicians 25 (27.7%)) filled out pre-intervention surveys. One hundred eighty-one physicians (residents 155 (40.3%), attending physicians 18 (20%)) filled out post-intervention surveys. When survey responses from the attendings and residents on the medical teams were combined, post-intervention rounds were perceived as more worthwhile (1.99 pre-intervention and 1.55 post-intervention, [95% confidence interval 1.831-2.143]) (p < 0.001) and more engaging (1.68 pre-intervention and 1.30 post-intervention, [95% confidence interval 1.407-1.688]) (p < 0.001).Non-medical teams' survey responses did not change. Patient census data indicated no significant difference in the hospital's census on the pre- and post-intervention dates. Spontaneous suggestions for improving rounds came largely from the residents and included teaching points, clinical pearls, patient focus, more interactive, increased dedicated time for teaching, inclusive/multidisciplinary, questions, and evidence-based teaching. Of the participants who answered the online survey 9 months later, 75% (6/8) reported that they "actually asked a wider variety of types of questions." DISCUSSION: This pilot study indicates that the 1-h intervention of learning to ask a variety of different questions is associated with rounds that are rated as more worthwhile and engaging by the medical teams.

A faculty development program to train tutors to be discussion leaders rather than facilitators.

PURPOSE: During 2003, 2004, and 2005, the role of 70 tutors was changed from that of facilitator to discussion leader, in a preclinical PBL learning course, Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology, by use of three key business school teaching strategies: questions, summaries, and schematics. The purpose of this study was to learn what difference this new approach made. METHOD: During each of the three study years, 171 (2003), 167 (2004), and 170 (2005) students were given Likert-scale attitudinal questionnaires to rate whether their tutors encouraged student direction of the tutorials and whether the summaries and closure schematics benefited their learning. Students' overall course evaluations and mean USMLE scores were quantitatively analyzed, pre- and postintervention. A variety of statistical tests were used to assess the statistical significance of means at the confidence level of .05. RESULTS: In the third year of the program, student ratings indicated that their tutors were significantly better at encouraging student direction of the tutorials than in the first year (P < .05). The students reported that the tutorial made a more important contribution to their learning (P < .05), and the course objectives were better stated (P = .038) and better met (P = .007). Overall satisfaction with the course also improved significantly (P = .006). Part I gastrointestinal system mean scores of the USMLE showed a statistically significant increase in 2005 compared with 2001 or 2002. CONCLUSIONS: The tutor as a discussion leader who questions, summarizes, and uses schematics to illustrate concepts had a significant and positive impact on learning in tutorials, achieving course objectives, improving overall course satisfaction, and increasing a standardized national exam's mean score.