Early introduction of the multi-disciplinary team through student Schwartz Rounds: a mixed methodology study

• Main Authors: Abnett, H. (Author), Evans, L. (Author), Tuckwell, R. (Author)
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BioMed Central Ltd 2022
• Subjects: adult; article; controlled study; female; frustration; general hospital; Group Reflection; human; human experiment; Likert scale; male; medical education; medical student; multidisciplinary team; Multi-disciplinary team; qualitative analysis; quantitative analysis; questionnaire; Reflective Practice; Schwartz Rounds; Teaching; thematic analysis; trust; Undergraduate; workplace
• Online Access: View Fulltext in Publisher

 Background: Medical education has changed continually throughout the covid-19 pandemic, creating additional stress for medical students. Personal reflection can empower an individual to adapt to new challenges, and reflection has gradually become incorporated into medical student training. Schwartz Rounds (SR) offer a compassionate group reflective forum for healthcare staff. SRs have been extensively introduced throughout the NHS, however medical student rounds are yet to be widely adopted. Entirely unresearched is how the multi-disciplinary team impacts a medical student SR. This study aims to compare medical student experience of a single-discipline and a multi-discipline SR using mixed methodology. Methods: Two virtual SRs were run at an NHS district general hospital, using the existing structure of the Trust’s rounds. The first round included only medical students on placement at the hospital, whereas the second round also involved other student health disciplines. Following each round Likert scale questionnaires were collected, and focus groups were held with a small number of participants. Quantitative analysis used median averages as well direct comparison of scores for each round. Qualitative data from the focus groups underwent thematic analysis. Results: The quantitative data showed a positive response to both styles of student SRs, with over 87% of participants at both rounds stating they intended to attend further rounds. Direct comparison between the two rounds showed higher feedback scores for the single-discipline round. Qualitative analysis showed strong student interest in further group reflection, noting the value of SRs in improving workplace culture and inter-professional relationships. The analysis also highlighted frustrations with the existing SR structure, namely large group sizes and scripted panellists. Conclusions: Both data sets showed a strong positive response to SRs, and a desire to attend again. There is some evidence to suggest the addition of multiple student disciplines at SRs impaired medical student reflection. Changes to the format of the round could result in even greater success in student rounds. © 2022, The Author(s).