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 |
Maximising harm reduction in early specialty training for general practice: validation of a safety checklist
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2296-13-62 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Bowie, John McKay, Moya Kelly |
| Abstract |
Making health care safer is a key policy priority worldwide. In specialty training, medical educators may unintentionally impact on patient safety e.g. through failures of supervision; providing limited feedback on performance; and letting poorly developed behaviours continue unchecked. Doctors-in-training are also known to be susceptible to medical error. Ensuring that all essential educational issues are addressed during training is problematic given the scale of the tasks to be undertaken. Human error and the reliability of local systems may increase the risk of safety-critical topics being inadequately covered. However adherence to a checklist reminder may improve the reliability of task delivery and maximise harm reduction. We aimed to prioritise the most safety-critical issues to be addressed in the first 12-weeks of specialty training in the general practice environment and validate a related checklist reminder. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 6 | 46% |
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 123 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 14% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 28 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Unknown | 34 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 August 2015.
All research outputs
#4,646,256
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#643
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,370
of 177,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#7
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 177,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.