↓ Skip to main content

How we use patient encounter data for reflective learning in family medicine training

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Teacher, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
How we use patient encounter data for reflective learning in family medicine training
Published in
Medical Teacher, October 2014
DOI 10.3109/0142159x.2014.970626
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Morgan, Kim Henderson, Amanda Tapley, John Scott, Mieke van Driel, Allison Thomson, Neil Spike, Lawrie McArthur, Jenny Presser, Parker Magin

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Consulting with patients is the core learning activity of Australian family medicine (general practice/GP) training, providing a rich source of reflective learning for trainees. We have developed a reflective learning program for postgraduate vocational trainees based on clinical encounters. Methods: The Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) program is an educational program documenting GP trainees' consultations in five Australian GP training providers. Trainees record patient demographics, consultation details, problems managed, management practices and educational factors from sixty consecutive consultations per six-month training term. Trainees receive a detailed feedback report comparing individual data to aggregated trainee data and national GP data. Results: The patient encounter system provides multiple opportunities for reflective learning across a number of domains of exposure and practice. Reflection can occur during completion of the encounter form; as self-reflection on the feedback report; as facilitated reflection with the GP trainer and medical educator; and as part of integration of data into teaching. We have identified areas for further development, including enhancing the reflective skills of trainees and trainers. Conclusion: The ReCEnT patient encounter program provides a rich platform for reflective learning for vocational trainees and supports development of skills in lifelong learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Librarian 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 14 33%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 48%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,385,510
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Medical Teacher
#2,066
of 2,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,697
of 255,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Teacher
#34
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 255,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.