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 |
Avoid reinventing the wheel: implementation of the Ottawa Clinic Assessment Tool (OCAT) in Internal Medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-018-1327-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samantha Halman, Janelle Rekman, Timothy Wood, Andrew Baird, Wade Gofton, Nancy Dudek |
| Abstract |
Workplace based assessment (WBA) is crucial to competency-based education. The majority of healthcare is delivered in the ambulatory setting making the ability to run an entire clinic a crucial core competency for Internal Medicine (IM) trainees. Current WBA tools used in IM do not allow a thorough assessment of this skill. Further, most tools are not aligned with the way clinical assessors conceptualize performances. To address this, many tools aligned with entrustment decisions have recently been published. The Ottawa Clinic Assessment Tool (OCAT) is an entrustment-aligned tool that allows for such an assessment but was developed in the surgical setting and it is not known if it can perform well in an entirely different context. The aim of this study was to implement the OCAT in an IM program and collect psychometric data in this different setting. Using one tool across multiple contexts may reduce the need for tool development and ensure that tools used have proper psychometric data to support them. Psychometrics characteristics were determined. Descriptive statistics and effect sizes were calculated. Scores were compared between levels of training (juniors (PGY1), seniors (PGY2s and PGY3s) & fellows (PGY4s and PGY5s)) using a one-way ANOVA. Safety for independent practice was analyzed with a dichotomous score. Variance components were generated and used to estimate the reliability of the OCAT. Three hundred ninety OCATs were completed over 52 weeks by 86 physicians assessing 44 residents. The range of ratings varied from 2 (I had to talk them through) to 5 (I did not need to be there) for most items. Mean scores differed significantly by training level (p < .001) with juniors having lower ratings (M = 3.80 (out of 5), SD = 0.49) than seniors (M = 4.22, SD = - 0.47) who had lower ratings than fellows (4.70, SD = 0.36). Trainees deemed safe to run the clinic independently had significantly higher mean scores than those deemed not safe (p < .001). The generalizability coefficient that corresponds to internal consistency is 0.92. This study's psychometric data demonstrates that we can reliably use the OCAT in IM. We support assessing existing tools within different contexts rather than continuous developing discipline-specific instruments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 27% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 23 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,755,938
of 23,575,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,398
of 3,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,223
of 342,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#26
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,575,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,510 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 342,998 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 58% of its contemporaries.