Abstract
Background and purpose: "Morning Report" is a traditional ritual in medical education programs; it includes a diverse group of teachers and learners with heterogeneous learning goals. We performed a cross-sectional survey of residents, medical students and staffs using a convenience sample.Methods: A 33-item survey was developed with the assistance of a pilot study and two focus groups. Our participants were from four different educational wards including Surgery, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics and Obstetrics & Gynecology.Results: 78% of the respondents stated that morning report sessions motivated them for self-directed learning and 70.3% of respondents stated that the format of morning report is good. 57.6% of respondents stated that discussed cases in the morning report are varied, 80% of the respondents experienced lack of appropriate feedback. 56.8% of the respondents stated discussion about the case results in better management of the patient, 39% stated that morning report results in resolving diagnosis problems. 50% of the respondents stated that there are enough communions between attending physician and student. There was not any significant difference between answers of residents, medical students and faculty members. We found considerable non-performance in attends (?) performance in running morning report sessions.Conclusions: Defining the roles of attends in optimizing learning, such as more attention towards developing problem solving and critical thinking skills and convergence between the attitudes and motivations of the learners and the teachers is strongly recommended.
Keywords
Fulltext
The body of the article can be found in the PDF file.
References
-
1.
References are available in the PDF file.
Copyright
© 2015, Author(s). This open-access article is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which allows for unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.