↓ Skip to main content

Beyond ‘health and safety’ – the challenges facing students asked to work outside of their comfort, qualification level or expertise on medical elective placement

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Beyond ‘health and safety’ – the challenges facing students asked to work outside of their comfort, qualification level or expertise on medical elective placement
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0307-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Connie Wiskin, Jonathan Dowell, Catherine Hale

Abstract

On elective students may not always be clear about safeguarding themselves and others. It is important that placements are safe, and ethically grounded. A concern for medical schools is equipping their students for exposure to and response to uncomfortable and/or unfamiliar requests in locations away from home, where their comfort and safety, or that of the patient, may be compromised. This can require legal, ethical, and/or moral reasoning on the part of the student. The goal of this article is to establish what students actually encounter on elective, to inform better preparing students for safe and ethical medical placements. We discuss the implications of our findings, which are arguably applicable to other areas of graduate training, e.g. first medical roles post-qualification. An anonymised survey exploring clinical and ethical dilemmas on elective was issued across 3 years of returning final year elective medical students. Questions included the prevalence and type of potentially unsafe scenarios encountered, barriers to saying 'no' in unsafe situations, perceived differences between resource poor and developed world settings and the degree to which students refused or consented to participation in events outside of the 'norms' of their own training experience. Three hundred seventy-nine students participated. 45% were asked to do something "not permissible" at home. 27% were asked to do something they felt "uncomfortable" with, often an invasive clinical task. Half asked to do something not usually permissible were "comfortable". 48% felt it more acceptable to bypass guidelines in developing settings. 27% refused an offer outside their experience. Of interest are reasons for "going along with" uncomfortable invitations, e.g. "emergency", self-belief in 'capability' and being 'more qualified' than host-personnel. This "best pair of hands available" merits scrutiny. Adverse scenarios were not exclusive to developing settings. We discuss preparing students for decision-making in new contexts, and address whether 'home' processes are too inflexible to prepare students for 'real' medical life? Ethical decision-making and communicating reluctance should be included in elective preparation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Researcher 3 5%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 19 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Psychology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 22 35%
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 21 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,830,887
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#492
of 1,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,227
of 328,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#22
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 328,924 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 68% 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 is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.