↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of a novel population panel management curriculum among interprofessional health care trainees

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
Implementation of a novel population panel management curriculum among interprofessional health care trainees
Published in
BMC Medical Education, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1093-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine P. Kaminetzky, Lauren A. Beste, Anne P. Poppe, Daniel B. Doan, Howard K. Mun, Nancy Fugate Woods, Joyce E. Wipf

Abstract

Gaps in chronic disease management have led to calls for novel methods of interprofessional, team-based care. Population panel management (PPM), the process of continuous quality improvement across groups of patients, is rarely included in health professions training for physicians, nurses, or pharmacists. The feasibility and acceptance of such training across different healthcare professions is unknown. We developed and implemented a novel, interprofessional PPM curriculum targeted to diverse health professions trainees. The curriculum was implemented annually among internal medicine residents, nurse practitioner students and residents, and pharmacy residents co-located in a large, academic primary care site. Small groups of interprofessional trainees participated in supervised quarterly seminars focusing on chronic disease management (e.g., diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) or processes of care (e.g., emergency department utilization for nonacute conditions or chronic opioid management). Following brief didactic presentations, trainees self-assessed their clinic performance using patient-level chart review, presented individual cases to interprofessional staff and faculty, and implemented subsequent feedback with their clinic team. We report data from 2011 to 2015. Program evaluation included post-session participant surveys regarding attitudes, knowledge and confidence towards PPM, ability to identify patients for referral to interprofessional team members, and major learning points from the session. Directed content analysis was performed on an open-ended survey question. Trainees (n = 168) completed 122 evaluation assessments. Trainees overwhelmingly reported increased confidence in using PPM and increased knowledge about managing their patient panel. Trainees reported improved ability to identify patients who would benefit from multidisciplinary care or referral to another team member. Directed content analysis revealed that trainees viewed team members as important system resources (n = 82). Structured interprofessional training in PPM is both feasible and acceptable to trainees across multiple professions. Curriculum participants reported improved panel management skills, increased confidence in using PPM, and increased confidence in identifying candidates for interprofessional care. The curriculum could be readily exported to other programs and contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 152 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Researcher 7 5%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 57 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 19%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 60 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,542,740
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,362
of 3,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,899
of 440,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#53
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 440,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.