↓ Skip to main content

Family medicine trainees’ clinical experience of chronic disease during training: a cross-sectional analysis from the registrars’ clinical encounters in training study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Family medicine trainees’ clinical experience of chronic disease during training: a cross-sectional analysis from the registrars’ clinical encounters in training study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12909-014-0260-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Parker Magin, Simon Morgan, Kim Henderson, Amanda Tapley, Patrick McElduff, James Pearlman, Susan Goode, Neil Spike, Caroline Laurence, John Scott, Allison Thomson, Mieke van Driel

Abstract

BackgroundA broad case-mix in family physicians¿ (general practitioners¿, GPs¿) vocational trainee experience is deemed essential in producing competent independent practitioners. It is suggested that the patient-mix should include common and significant conditions and be similar to that of established GPs. But the content of contemporary GP trainees¿ clinical experience in training is not well-documented. In particular, how well trainees¿ experience reflects changing general practice demographics (with an increasing prevalence of chronic disease) is unknown. We aimed to establish levels of trainees¿ clinical exposure to chronic disease in training (and associations of this exposure) and to establish content differences in chronic disease consultations (compared to other consultations), and differences in trainees¿ actions arising from these consultations.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis from the Registrars¿ Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study, a cohort study of GP registrars¿ (trainees¿) consultations in four Australian GP training organisations. Trainees record detailed data from 60 consecutive consultations per six-month training term. Diagnoses/problems encountered are coded using the International Classification of Primary Care-2 PLUS (ICPC-2 PLUS). A classification system derived from ICPC-2 PLUS was used to define diagnoses/problems as chronic/non-chronic disease. The outcome factor for analyses was trainees¿ consultations in which chronic disease was encountered. Independent variables were a range of patient, trainee, practice, consultation and educational factors.ResultsOf 48,112 consultations (of 400 individual trainees), 29.5% included chronic disease problems/diagnoses. Associations of a consultation including chronic disease were the patient being older, male, and having consulted the trainee previously, and the practice routinely bulk-billing (not personally charging) patients. Consultations involving a chronic disease lasted longer, dealt with more problems/diagnoses, and were more likely to result in specialist referrals and trainees generating a personal learning goal. They were associated with less pathology tests being ordered.ConclusionsTrainees saw chronic disease less frequently than have established GPs in comparable studies. The longer duration and more frequent generation of learning goals in chronic disease-containing consultations suggest trainees may find these consultations particularly challenging. Our findings may inform the design of measures aimed at increasing the chronic disease component of trainees¿ patient-mix.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Lecturer 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Psychology 3 13%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 December 2014.
All research outputs
#14,143,538
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,943
of 3,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,549
of 361,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#32
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 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 3,308 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 361,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.