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 |
Applying the trigger review method after a brief educational intervention: potential for teaching and improving safety in GP specialty training?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-13-117 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John McKay, Carl de Wet, Moya Kelly, Paul Bowie |
| Abstract |
The Trigger Review Method (TRM) is a structured approach to screening clinical records for undetected patient safety incidents (PSIs) and identifying learning and improvement opportunities. In Scotland, TRM participation can inform GP appraisal and has been included as a core component of the national primary care patient safety programme that was launched in March 2013. However, the clinical workforce needs up-skilled and the potential of TRM in GP training has yet to be tested. Current TRM training utilizes a workplace face-to-face session by a GP expert, which is not feasible. A less costly, more sustainable educational intervention is necessary to build capability at scale. We aimed to determine the feasibility and impact of TRM and a related training intervention in GP training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 4 | 36% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 36% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 21% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 30% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 38% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 08 May 2014.
All research outputs
#4,628,074
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#783
of 3,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,140
of 199,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#13
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 199,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.