↓ Skip to main content

Developing an Evaluation Tool for Assessing Clinical Ethics Consultation Skills in Simulation Based Education: The ACES Project

Overview of attention for article published in HEC Forum, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Developing an Evaluation Tool for Assessing Clinical Ethics Consultation Skills in Simulation Based Education: The ACES Project
Published in
HEC Forum, March 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10730-015-9276-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Wasson, Kayhan Parsi, Michael McCarthy, Viva Jo Siddall, Mark Kuczewski

Abstract

The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities has created a quality attestation (QA) process for clinical ethics consultants; the pilot phase of reviewing portfolios has begun. One aspect of the QA process which is particularly challenging is assessing the interpersonal skills of individual clinical ethics consultants. We propose that using case simulation to evaluate clinical ethics consultants is an approach that can meet this need provided clear standards for assessment are identified. To this end, we developed the Assessing Clinical Ethics Skills (ACES) tool, which identifies and specifies specific behaviors that a clinical ethics consultant should demonstrate in an ethics case simulation. The aim is for the clinical ethics consultant or student to use a videotaped case simulation, along with the ACES tool scored by a trained rater, to demonstrate their competence as part of their QA portfolio. The development and piloting of the tool is described.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Psychology 2 7%
Philosophy 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 21%
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 24 March 2015.
All research outputs
#13,081,121
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#91
of 184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,270
of 262,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 262,851 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.