↓ Skip to main content

The MRCGP Clinical Skills Assessment: an integrative review of evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Education for Primary Care, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
The MRCGP Clinical Skills Assessment: an integrative review of evidence
Published in
Education for Primary Care, January 2018
DOI 10.1080/14739879.2018.1427510
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen McLoughlin, Lindsey Pope, Elaine Walsh, Aisling Jennings, Tony Foley

Abstract

Background Successful completion of all three components of the Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners UK (MRCGP) is required for a doctor to practise independently as a general practitioner (GP). One component, the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA), is a high fidelity, high stakes examination designed to provide an objective external assessment of clinical skills. Aim The aim of this integrative review was to identify, critically appraise and synthesise published empirical evidence on the CSA to identify areas for further inquiry or future collaboration. Design and setting An integrative review of empirical literature focused on the MRCGP CSA. Method A search strategy was developed to conduct an integrative review of empirical published literature. The quality of studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results 11 of the 31 records reviewed were included. Studies were heterogeneous looking at the use of simulated patients, child actors and mock CSAs. Variables contributing to performance on the CSA, with a particular emphasis on the International Medical Graduate, were identified. Conclusion A small pool of published evidence regarding the CSA exists, focused on factors influencing CSA performance. Future research could explore the effectiveness of interventions to improve performance on the CSA and use robust measures to consider candidates' experience of the CSA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 18 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Chemistry 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,667,153
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Education for Primary Care
#163
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,803
of 441,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Education for Primary Care
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 441,125 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.