You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Safe prescribing training provision for junior doctors: is this optimal?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-016-0748-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria B. Kennedy, Muzaffar Malik, Inam Haq, Sian E. Williams, Michael Okorie |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to determine the training provisions in practical safe prescribing for foundation doctors in NHS hospitals located in the South Thames region. A web-based questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to all 1762 foundation doctors in the South Thames Foundation School (STFS) region. In addition, a separate questionnaire was distributed to prescribing training Leads at 15 NHS Hospital Trusts. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis was performed on qualitative data. Trainers: 10 Prescribing Leads (67 %) responded. Of the 9 NHS Trusts that offered safe prescribing training in their induction programme, 5 included a practical prescribing session. By the end of the foundation year, 6 NHS Trusts had provided at least one dedicated practical prescribing session for F1s compared with 2 NHS Trusts for F2s. Trainees: A total of 124 foundation trainees (7.2 %) responded (69 F1s and 55 F2s). 87 % of F1s received dedicated training in safe prescribing at their Trust induction (n = 60) in comparison to 49 % of F2s (n = 27). 80 % of F1s (n = 55) had a practical prescribing session during induction versus 27 % of F2s (n = 15). The difference was significant, X (2) (1, N = 124) = 34.23, p <0.0001. Emerging themes from qualitative data included, recognition of medical education as a continuum, importance of working relationships with pharmacists and neglect of F2s. There appears to be a lack of emphasis on the training of F2 doctors in practical safe prescribing compared with F1 doctors. There should be standardisation of safe prescribing training provisions, particularly in the induction period and for F2 doctors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,754,834
of 24,739,153 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,927
of 3,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,835
of 348,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#46
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,739,153 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.