↓ Skip to main content

Education in airway management

Overview of attention for article published in Anaesthesia, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Education in airway management
Published in
Anaesthesia, November 2011
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06939.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. A. Baker, J. M. Weller, K. B. Greenland, R. H. Riley, A. F. Merry

Abstract

In airway management, poor judgment, education and training are leading causes of patient morbidity and mortality. The traditional model of medical education, which relies on experiential learning in the clinical environment, is inconsistent and often inadequate. Curriculum change is underway in many medical organisations in an effort to correct these problems, and airway management is likely to be explicitly addressed as a clinical fundamental within any new anaesthetic curriculum. Competency-based medical education with regular assessment of clinical ability is likely to be introduced for all anaesthetists engaged in airway management. Essential clinical competencies need to be defined and improvements in training techniques can be expected based on medical education research. Practitioners need to understand their equipment and diversify their airway skills to cope with a variety of clinical presentations. Expertise stems from deliberate practice and a desire constantly to improve performance with a career-long commitment to education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 2%
United States 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 130 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Other 49 36%
Unknown 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Psychology 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 24 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,356,627
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#2,659
of 5,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,546
of 146,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#11
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 146,491 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.