↓ Skip to main content

Ad hoc supervision of general practice registrars as a ‘community of practice’: analysis, interpretation and re-presentation

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Ad hoc supervision of general practice registrars as a ‘community of practice’: analysis, interpretation and re-presentation
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10459-015-9639-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Clement, J. Brown, J. Morrison, D. Nestel

Abstract

General practice registrars in Australia undertake most of their vocational training in accredited general practices. They typically see patients alone from the start of their community-based training and are expected to seek timely ad hoc support from their supervisor. Such ad hoc encounters are a mechanism for ensuring patient safety, but also provide an opportunity for learning and teaching. Wenger's (Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998) social theory of learning ('communities of practice') guided a secondary analysis of audio-recordings of ad hoc encounters. Data from one encounter is re-presented as an extended sequence to maintain congruence with the theoretical perspective and enhance vicariousness. An interpretive commentary communicates key features of Wenger's theory and highlights the researchers' interpretations. We argue that one encounter can reveal universal understandings of clinical supervision and that the process of naturalistic generalisation allows readers to transfer others' experiences to their own contexts. The paper raises significant analytic, interpretive, and representational issues. We highlight that report writing is an important, but infrequently discussed, part of research design. We discuss the challenges of supporting the learning and teaching that arises from adopting a socio-cultural lens and argue that such a perspective importantly captures the complex range of issues that work-based practitioners have to grapple with. This offers a challenge to how we research and seek to influence work-based learning and teaching in health care settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 26%
Social Sciences 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Psychology 6 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 24 30%
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 02 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,467,636
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#413
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,361
of 272,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 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 851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 272,855 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.