↓ Skip to main content

Is the delivery of a quality improvement education programme in obstetrics and gynaecology for final year medical students feasible and still effective in a shortened time frame?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
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.
Title
Is the delivery of a quality improvement education programme in obstetrics and gynaecology for final year medical students feasible and still effective in a shortened time frame?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0927-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bridget Kool, Michelle R. Wise, Roshini Peiris-John, Lynn Sadler, Faith Mahony, Susan Wells

Abstract

Teaching clinical audit skills to nascent health professionals is one strategy to improve frontline care. The undergraduate medical curriculum at the University of Auckland provides improvement science theory and skills in Year 5 teaching, and the opportunity to put this into practice during an Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) clinical attachment in Year 6. In 2015, a revised medical school curriculum at the university resulted in a planned reduction of the O&G attachment from five weeks to four, necessitating revision of the Year 6 Quality Improvement (QI) project. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the revised programme provided an important experiential learning opportunity for medical students without imposing an unsustainable burden on clinical services. Based on a CIPP (Context/Input/Process/Product) evaluation model, the study was conducted in several stages to get a sense of the context as the new programme was being planned (Context evaluation), the feasibility of an alternative approach to meet the educational need (Input evaluation), the implementation of the revised programme (Process evaluation) and finally, the programme outcomes (Product evaluation). We used multiple data sources (supervisors, students, academic administrators, and hospital staff) and data collection methods (questionnaires, focus groups, individual interviews, consultative workshops, student reports and oral presentations). The context evaluation revealed the Year 6 QI programme to be valuable and contributed to O&G service improvements, however, the following concerns were identified: time to complete the project, timely topic selection and access to data, recognition of student achievement, and staff workload. The evaluation of the revised QI project indicated improvement in student perceptions of their QI knowledge and skills, and most areas previously identified as challenging, despite the concurrent reduction in the duration of the O&G attachment. Applying the CIPP model for evaluation to our revised QI programme enabled streamlining of procedures to achieve greater efficiency without compromising the quality of the learning experience, or increasing pressure on staff. A four week clinical rotation is adequate for medical educators to consider opportunities for including QI projects as part of student experiential learning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 9 12%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 4 5%
Other 20 27%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 34%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 25 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 June 2017.
All research outputs
#8,691,196
of 11,298,449 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,194
of 1,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,876
of 265,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#30
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,298,449 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 265,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.