Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 301–304 | Cite as

Has bedside teaching had its day?

Reflections

Abstract

Though a diverse array of teaching methods is now available, bedside teaching is arguably the most favoured. Students like it because it is patient-centred, and it includes a high proportion of relevant skills. It is on the decline, coinciding with declining clinical skills of junior doctors. Several factors might account for this: busier hospitals, broader roles of clinicians, competing teaching modalities, and the limited training of clinicians as medical educators. However, bedside teaching offers unique benefits. Students gain first-hand experience of the doctor patient relationship. They see the process of interacting with patients, investigative yet sensitive, demystified. Certain clinical skills, like the recognition of the tactile sensation of hepatosplenomegaly cannot be simulated elsewhere. We advocate the preservation of bedside learning experience. Teaching guidelines should be written to minimise disruption to ward work, and to ensure the preservation of patient autonomy. Greater emphasis should be placed on bedside skills in the undergraduate curriculum. For teachers, training in teaching methodology should begin at undergraduate level, with subsequent protected teaching time in job plans. This would increase not just the quantity, but also the quality of bedside teaching.

Keywords

Bedside teaching Undergraduate Clinical skills Assessment Small group teaching 

References

  1. Alam, U., Asghar, O., Khan, S. Q., Hayat, S., & Malik, R. A. (2010). Cardiac auscultation: An essential clinical skill in decline. The British Journal of Cardiology, 17, 8–10.Google Scholar
  2. Bulte, C., Betts, A., Garner, K., & Durning, S. (2007). Student teaching: Views of student near-peer teachers and learners. Medical Teacher, 29, 583–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colaco, S. M., Chou, C. L., & Hauer, K. E. (2006). Near-peer teaching in a formative clinical skills examination. Medical Education, 40, 1129–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crumlish, C. M., Yialamas, M. A., & McMahon, G. T. (2009). Quantification of bedside teaching by an academic hospitalist group. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 4, 304–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. GMC 2009 Tomorrow’s Doctors. (2009). London: General Medical Council. http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/undergraduate/tomorrows_doctors_2009.asp. Retrieved February 2, 2011.
  6. Nair, B. R., Coughlan, J. L., & Hensley, M. F. (1998). Impediments to bed-side teaching. Medical Education, 32, 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Reichsman, F., Browning, F. E., & Hinshaw, J. R. (1964). Observations of undergraduate clinical teaching in action. Journal of Medical Education, 39, 147–163.Google Scholar
  8. Rodrigues, J., Sengupta, A., Mitchell, A., Kane, C., Kane, C., Maxwell, S., et al. (2009). The Southeast Scotland Foundation Doctor Teaching Programme–is “near-peer” teaching feasible, efficacious and sustainable on a regional scale? Medical Teacher, 31, e51–e57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sengupta, A., Todd, A. J., Leslie, S. J., Bagnall, A., Boon, N. A., Fox, K. A., et al. (2007). Peer-led medical student tutorials using the cardiac simulator ‘Harvey’. Medical Education, 41, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Simons, R. J., Bailey, R. G., & Zwillich, C. W. (1989). The physiological and psychological effects of the bedside presentation. New England Journal of Medicine, 321, 1273–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wang-Cheng, R. M., Barnas, G. P., Sigmann, P., Riendl, P. A., & Young, M. J. (1989). Bedside case presentations: Why patients like them but learners don’t. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 4, 284–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Neonatology DepartmentEdinburgh Royal InfirmaryEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Western General HospitalEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Clinical Pharmacology UnitUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations