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 |
Point of care ultrasound training for internal medicine: a Canadian multi-centre learner needs assessment study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-018-1326-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathryn Watson, Ada Lam, Shane Arishenkoff, Samantha Halman, Neil E. Gibson, Jeffrey Yu, Kathryn Myers, Marcy Mintz, Irene W. Y. Ma |
| Abstract |
Significant gaps currently exist in the Canadian internal medicine point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) curriculum. From a learner's perspective, it remains unknown what key POCUS skills should be prioritized. This needs assessment study seeks to establish educational priorities for POCUS for internal medicine residents at five Canadian residency training programs. All internal medicine trainees [postgraduate year (PGY) 1-5] from five internal medicine residency training programs in Canada (n = 598) were invited to complete an online survey on 15 diagnostic POCUS applications, 9 bedside procedures, and 18 POCUS knowledge items. For POCUS applications and procedures, participants were asked how applicable they are to patient care in internal medicine and the participants' reported skills in those domains. Self-reported knowledge and skills were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = very poor and 5 = very good. Applicability was rated, where 1 = not at all applicable and 5 = very applicable. A total of 253 of 598 residents (42%) participated in our study. Data from one centre (n = 15) was removed because of low response rate (15%) and significant baseline differences between those trainees and the remaining participants. Of the remaining analyzable data from four training programs (n = 238), participants reported highest applicability to internal medicine for the following applications and procedures: identifying ascites/free fluid [mean applicability score of 4.9 ± standard deviation (SD) 0.4]; gross left ventricular function (mean 4.8 ± SD 0.5) and pericardial effusion (mean 4.7 ± SD 0.5); thoracentesis (mean score 4.9 ± SD 0.3), central line insertion (mean 4.9 ± SD 0.3), and paracentesis (mean 4.9 ± SD 0.3), respectively. Overall reported knowledge/skills was low, with skill gaps being the highest for identifying deep vein thrombosis (mean gap 2.7 ± SD 1.1), right ventricular strain (mean 2.7 ± SD 1.1), and gross left ventricular function (mean 2.7 ± SD 1.0). Many POCUS applications and procedures were felt to be applicable to the practice of internal medicine. Significant skill gaps exist in the four Canadian training programs included in the study. POCUS curriculum development efforts should target training based on these perceived skill gaps. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 49% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 26 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 October 2018.
All research outputs
#14,140,925
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,916
of 3,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,634
of 342,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#35
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 342,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.