| Title |
Complexity in Graduate Medical Education: A Collaborative Education Agenda for Internal Medicine and Geriatric Medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-013-2752-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Chang, Helen Fernandez, Danelle Cayea, Shobhina Chheda, Miguel Paniagua, Elizabeth Eckstrom, Hollis Day |
| Abstract |
Internal medicine residents today face significant challenges in caring for an increasingly complex patient population within ever-changing education and health care environments. As a result, medical educators, health care system leaders, payers, and patients are demanding change and accountability in graduate medical education (GME). A 2012 Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) retreat identified medical education as an area for collaboration between internal medicine and geriatric medicine. The authors first determined a short-term research agenda for resident education by mapping selected internal medicine reporting milestones to geriatrics competencies, and listing available sample learner assessment tools. Next, the authors proposed a strategy for long-term collaboration in three priority areas in clinical medicine that are challenging for residents today: (1) team-based care, (2) transitions and readmissions, and (3) multi-morbidity. The short-term agenda focuses on learner assessment, while the long-term agenda allows for program evaluation and improvement. This model of collaboration in medical education combines the resources and expertise of internal medicine and geriatric medicine educators with the goal of increasing innovation and improving outcomes in GME targeting the needs of our residents and their patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Librarian | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 36% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 47% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
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 12 June 2014.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,057
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,687
of 228,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#74
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. 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 228,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.