Do ward rounds offer effective teaching and training? Obstacles to learning and what makes good teaching in a large tertiary care hospital from trainee doctor’s perspective

Background: Ward rounds (WR) have been integral to the process of teaching and learning medicine and also provides a vital opportunity to communicate with the patient, their relatives, and other healthcare professionals. Yet in recent years trainees’ perception of the educational value of WRs seems to have declined. Objectives: The aim of this study to assess trainees’ perception of the educational value of WRs at King Abdulaziz Medical City(KAMC), Riyadh, a 1500 bed academic hospital in Saudi Arabia.Methods: A self-administered, paper-based survey was distributed to physicians in training at KAMC between October and December 2019. All residents who attended WRs were invited to participate. The questionnaire was adapted from a survey used in a previous study. The demographic section requested details of the respondent's age, gender, specialty, and seniority. The second and third sections asked about the logistics of current ward round practices. It included several questions on the structure as well as the duration and frequency of ward rounds. The fourth and fifth sections asked for participant’s perception of the opportunities for, and the obstacles to, learning on ward rounds. The subsequent sections asked several questions onward round structure and the clinical teacher. Responses were requested on a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree). The last section asked the participant for general comments and feedbackResult: The study targeted 250 residents in specialties that routinely performed WRs. Only 166 residents returned the questionnaire (response rate of 66.4%). Male 89 (53.6%), medical 108 (65.1%), surgical 58 (34.9%), resident in first year 81 (48.8%). The overall average time spent on WR was 13 (± 11 SD) hours per week. The WR was perceived as a good opportunity to learn about diagnostic investigation 138 (83%) and patient management 133(80.1%), history taking114 (68.7%) physical examination 103 (62.0%), and time management skills 86 (51.8%). The majority of our trainees felt that the WR was educationally very useful to 86 (52%) and attribute to at least a third of the education they receive during their training. They also reported that about the quarter of the time spent on WRs is devoted to teaching. The good teacher described as enthusiastic to teach 137 (82.5%), provide feedback to trainees 135 (81%), do not rush 139(83.7), communicate to trainee 144 (86.7), and consultant level,101 (60.8). Trainees also identify a few factors that hinder their training such as lack of time 130 (79%), and the number of patients 129 (78.3). Conclusion: This study identifies the strengths and weaknesses of WR in our institution. Finding will help training supervisors in addressing and rectifying these shortcoming and factors hinder training.