↓ Skip to main content

A novel bedside cardiopulmonary physical diagnosis curriculum for internal medicine postgraduate training

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
A novel bedside cardiopulmonary physical diagnosis curriculum for internal medicine postgraduate training
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1020-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian Thomas Garibaldi, Timothy Niessen, Allan Charles Gelber, Bennett Clark, Yizhen Lee, Jose Alejandro Madrazo, Reza Sedighi Manesh, Ariella Apfel, Brandyn D. Lau, Gigi Liu, Jenna VanLiere Canzoniero, C. John Sperati, Hsin-Chieh Yeh, Daniel J. Brotman, Thomas A. Traill, Danelle Cayea, Samuel C. Durso, Rosalyn W. Stewart, Mary C. Corretti, Edward K. Kasper, Sanjay V. Desai

Abstract

Physicians spend less time at the bedside in the modern hospital setting which has contributed to a decline in physical diagnosis, and in particular, cardiopulmonary examination skills. This trend may be a source of diagnostic error and threatens to erode the patient-physician relationship. We created a new bedside cardiopulmonary physical diagnosis curriculum and assessed its effects on post-graduate year-1 (PGY-1; interns) attitudes, confidence and skill. One hundred five internal medicine interns in a large U.S. internal medicine residency program participated in the Advancing Bedside Cardiopulmonary Examination Skills (ACE) curriculum while rotating on a general medicine inpatient service between 2015 and 2017. Teaching sessions included exam demonstrations using healthy volunteers and real patients, imaging didactics, computer learning/high-fidelity simulation, and bedside teaching with experienced clinicians. Primary outcomes were attitudes, confidence and skill in the cardiopulmonary physical exam as determined by a self-assessment survey, and a validated online cardiovascular examination (CE). Interns who participated in ACE (ACE interns) by mid-year more strongly agreed they had received adequate training in the cardiopulmonary exam compared with non-ACE interns. ACE interns were more confident than non-ACE interns in performing a cardiac exam, assessing the jugular venous pressure, distinguishing 'a' from 'v' waves, and classifying systolic murmurs as crescendo-decrescendo or holosystolic. Only ACE interns had a significant improvement in score on the mid-year CE. A comprehensive bedside cardiopulmonary physical diagnosis curriculum improved trainee attitudes, confidence and skill in the cardiopulmonary examination. These results provide an opportunity to re-examine the way physical examination is taught and assessed in residency training programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 5 9%
Librarian 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 14 26%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,752,252
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#812
of 3,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,436
of 323,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#20
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,363 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 75% 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 323,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 74% of its contemporaries.