Background and purpose: In-person prerounding has long been a routine practice for residents in the field of neurology. However, with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions, including our two academic neurology centers, have shifted to computer rounding. This study aims to assess the effects of computer rounding alone compared to a combination of computer rounding and in-person prerounding from the perspective of neurology residents.
Methods: A mixed-methods approach was employed, including a survey administered to 79 neurology residents and a qualitative thematic analysis of their responses.
Results: The quantitative analysis revealed that residents who engaged in inperson prerounding spent significantly more time on prerounding and computer rounding compared to those who did not. The majority of residents reported a neutral effect of in-person prerounding on their relationship with patients and bedside time, but a significant impact on personal lives and other tasks. Qualitative analysis identified four key themes: accessibility to team members, learning opportunities gained and lost, inefficiency, and sleep disturbance.
Conclusions: Overall, residents perceived in-person prerounding as inefficient and causing sleep disruption for both patients and themselves. While some residents valued the face-to-face interaction and improved accessibility, others felt that computer rounding allowed for thorough review of patient data, improving preparedness and efficiency. The potential elimination of in-person prerounding from residents' routines may enhance their overall wellbeing. Further research is needed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of removing this classic approach to caring for patients from the perspective of residents, attendings and patients.
Keywords: clinical specialty; education techniques; neurohospitalist; quality techniques; residency; rounding.
© The Author(s) 2024.