Johnston, Donna LRowan-Legg, AnneHamstra, Stanley J2015-12-182015-12-182014-12-16BMC Medical Education. 2014 Dec 16;14(1):262http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-014-0262-5http://hdl.handle.net/10393/33631Abstract Background In order to determine whether the CanMEDS roles could be helpful in solidifying knowledge during clinical training, we examined quality of care issues identified during morbidity and mortality (M&M) rounds. Methods During the M&M rounds, following the case presentation, there was a pause and attendees were asked to identify quality of care issues that were present in the case. The attendees were assigned to a CanMEDS prompted group or non-prompted group. Following the rounds, the issues were identified, coded according to CanMEDS role, and compared between groups. Results A total of 111 individuals identified a total of 350 issues; 57 individuals were in the CanMEDS-prompted group and 54 were in the unprompted group. The mean number of issues identified was significantly higher in the CanMEDS-prompted group compared to the unprompted group (3.7 versus 2.6, p = 0.039). There were significantly more issues raised in the prompted group for the roles of communicator, collaborator, scholar and professional. Conclusions Using CanMEDS roles as prompts, attendees at M&M rounds identify more quality of care issues than if not given a prompt. Use of the CanMEDS framework may assist learners to consolidate the linkage between expected training objectives and the complexities of clinical practice.Journal Article2015-12-18enJohnston et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.