Correspondence

A New Format for Grand Rounds

N Engl J Med 1999; 340:1516May 13, 1999

Article

To the Editor:

For many years, our divisional grand round, like most others, was a once-weekly session with one speaker.1-4 To increase its attractiveness to a broader audience (students, researchers, and other health professionals), we developed a new format, based on several premises: that presentations should appeal to a broad range of attendees, that several short presentations on a topic hold the listeners' attention better than one long presentation, that senior faculty should speak more often on important subjects (especially those rarely covered in medical journals and books), and that a conference should start and run precisely on time.

We therefore decided to divide each of our 90-minute weekly grand rounds into six segments, which permits presentations to be on a range of subjects. The pace is brisk, and time allotments for each segment are well defined (Table 1Table 1Format for Divisional Grand Rounds, “Clinical, Social, and Scientific Foundations of Geriatric Medicine,” for Two Consecutive Weekly Sessions.). The invocation, a short presentation on an important topic, is given by a senior faculty member. Another faculty member then discusses a scientific topic, often from a recent journal article. A third faculty member provides a brief follow-up to a clinical issue that emerged in a prior session. Then a clinician presents a case and orchestrates a discussion that leads to a clear conclusion. The discussion is followed by a short period of introductions of visitors and new staff and announcements. Finally, a guest gives a short lecture on an important emerging clinical or research topic. When several speakers address similar topics over a period of a month or two, an in-depth appreciation of the subject can be gained. With prompting by the leaders of the grand round, members of the division (and visitors) can stay within the designated time limits.

The new format has attracted a large, loyal, and participatory audience, which averages 55 people. The success seems to be due to the quality, variety, crisp pace, and brevity of the presentations within a well-defined time frame.

John R. Burton, M.D.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21224

Jesse Roth, M.D.
Picower Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY 11030

4 References

1. 1

   Ingelfinger FJ. The graying of grand rounds. N Engl J Med 1978;299:772-772
   Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

2. 2

   Parrino TA, White AT. Grand rounds revisited: results of a survey of U.S. departments of medicine. Am J Med 1990;89:491-495[Erratum, J Med 1991;90:140.]
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

3. 3

   Lewkonia R, Murray F. Grand rounds: a paradox in medical education. CMAJ 1995;152:371-376
   Web of Science | Medline

4. 4

   Riley HD Jr. Grand rounds revisited: some comments on current practices. South Med J 1992;85:1001-1002
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

Citing Articles (3)

Citing Articles

1. 1

   Sean X. Leng, Xinping Tian, Xiaohong Liu, Gerald Lazarus, Michele Bellantoni, William Greenough, Linda P. Fried, Ti Shen, Samuel C. Durso. (2010) An International Model for Geriatrics Program Development in China: The Johns Hopkins-Peking Union Medical College Experience. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 58:7, 1376-1381
   CrossRef

2. 2

   J. Ende. (2003) Rounding Alone: Assessing the Value of Grand Rounds in Contemporary Departments of Medicine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 78:5, 547-548
   CrossRef

3. 3

   P. S. Mueller, S. C. Litin, M. L. Sowden, T. M. Habermann, N. F. LaRusso. (2003) Strategies for Improving Attendance at Medical Grand Rounds at an Academic Medical Center. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 78:5, 549-553
   CrossRef