Table 2.
Categories and Attitudes of House Staff Who Completed Surveys About Bedside Rounds
| Comparison of groups | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Categories and attitudes | All house staff (N = 112) | House staff involved in the intervention (n = 32) | House staff not involved in the intervention (n = 80) | P Valued |
| Categories, n(%) | <0.001 | |||
| Interns | 42 (38) | 15 (47) | 27 (34) | |
| Junior residents | 37 (33) | 14 (44) | 23 (29) | |
| Senior residents | 33 (29) | 3 (9)a | 30 (37) | |
| Attitudes, n(%) | ||||
| Somewhat agree or strongly agree with the statement “I prefer bedside rounds” | 51 (46) | 15 (47) | 36 (45) | 0.86 |
| Somewhat agree or strongly agree with the statement “Bedside rounds are better for patient care” | 80 (73)b | 25 (83)c | 55 (69) | 0.32 |
| Somewhat agree or strongly agree with the statement “Bedside rounds are more efficient” | 58 (52) | 20 (63) | 38 (48) | 0.15 |
| Somewhat agree or strongly agree with the statement “Bedside rounds are more educational for house staff and medical students” | 79 (71) | 17 (53) | 62 (78) | 0.01 |
| Somewhat agree or strongly agree with the statement “Bedside rounds offer the patient more dignity” | 54 (48) | 16 (50) | 38 (48) | 0.81 |
aAlthough three senior residents indicated in the survey that they had participated in the intervention, records showed that only two had actually participated. Because the survey was completed anonymously, responses from all three senior residents are included here
bTwo individuals did not respond to the survey item, so the percentage is based on a denominator of 110 rather than 112
cTwo individuals did not respond to the survey item, so the percentage is based on a denominator of 30 rather than 32
dP-value as calculated by chi-square test