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 |
A comparative study on the frequency of simulation-based training and assessment of non-technical skills in the Norwegian ground ambulance services and helicopter emergency medical services
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-018-3325-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henrik Langdalen, Eirik B. Abrahamsen, Stephen J. M. Sollid, Leif Inge K. Sørskår, Håkon B. Abrahamsen |
| Abstract |
Inadequate non-technical skills (NTSs) among employees in the Norwegian prehospital emergency medical services (EMSs) are a risk for patient and operational safety. Simulation-based training and assessment is promising with respect to improving NTSs. The frequency of simulation-based training in and assessment of NTSs among crewmembers in the Norwegian helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) has gained increased attention over recent years, whereas there has been much less focus on the Norwegian ground emergency medical service (GEMS). The aim of the study was to compare and document the frequencies of simulation-based training in and assessment of seven NTSs between the Norwegian HEMS and GEMS, conditional on workplace and occupation. A comparative study of the results from cross-sectional questionnaires responded to by employees in the Norwegian prehospital EMSs in 2016 regarding training in and assessment of NTSs during 2015, with a focus on the Norwegian GEMS and HEMS. Professional groups of interest are: pilots, HEMS crew members (HCMs), physicians, paramedics, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), EMT apprentices, nurses and nurses with an EMT licence. The frequency of simulation-based training in and assessment of seven generic NTSs was statistically significantly greater for HEMS than for GEMS during 2015. Compared with pilots and HCMs, other health care providers in GEMS and HEMS undergo statistically significantly less frequent simulation-based training in and assessment of NTSs. Physicians working in the HEMS appear to be undergoing training and assessment more frequently than the rest of the health trust employees. The study indicates a tendency for lesser focus on the assessment of NTSs compared to simulation-based training. HEMS has become superior to GEMS, in terms of frequency of training in and assessment of NTSs. The low frequency of training in and assessment of NTSs in GEMS suggests that there is a great potential to learn from HEMS and to strengthen the focus on NTSs. Increased frequency of assessment of NTSs in both HEMS and GEMS is called for. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 138 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Researcher | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 22% |
| Unknown | 52 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 53 | 38% |
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 09 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,539,088
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,648
of 7,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,328
of 327,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#181
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 327,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.