This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elliott, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Ellis, S. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elliott, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Ellis, S. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Office Practice
PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 2 February 2004, pp. 243-247

A Bitter Pill: Attempting Change in a Pediatric Morning Report

Sean P. Elliott, MD* and Susan C. Ellis, EdS{ddagger}

* Department of Pediatrics and Steele Memorial Children’s Research Center, University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, Tucson, Arizona
{ddagger} Office of Educational Development, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona

Objective. To assess and address participants’ dissatisfaction with departmental morning report (MR).

Methods. Three consecutive MR sessions were observed, and those data, in combination with findings from the literature, were used to guide creation of a quantitative survey. The survey was administered to all faculty and housestaff. Survey items addressed the educational focus, leadership, and format of MR and the value of specific educational conferences. Subsequently, 2 interventions were developed to increase participants’ level of satisfaction with MR. The interventions’ effect was measured 1 year later using a second survey.

Results. Eighty-two percent of housestaff and 43% of faculty responded to the first survey. Our findings are contrary to those in the literature. For example, respondents rated the presence of all faculty at MR as desirable, and both subspecialty and general pediatric contributions were considered important. Housestaff assigned greater educational value to all teaching conferences than did faculty. Similarly, housestaff believed more strongly than faculty that MR leadership should be changed. A follow-up survey demonstrated a decrease in mean perceived value of MR after our interventions.

Conclusions. Despite aggressive research, we failed to identify the source of participants’ dissatisfaction. Although our interventions were based on research data and reflected participants’ perceptions and concerns related to MR, they were not supported by the faculty. This demonstrates the inherent difficulties in changing an "institution" such as MR. Thus, examination of MR goals and satisfaction by individual training programs should be conducted within the confines of the conference’s preexisting structure, without attempt to apply literature-driven expectations.

Key Words: medical education • pediatric morning report • teaching satisfaction

Abbreviations: MR, morning report

Received for publication Jan 30, 2003; Accepted Apr 11, 2003.