↓ Skip to main content

Virtual patients to explore and develop clinical case summary statement skills amongst Japanese resident physicians: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Virtual patients to explore and develop clinical case summary statement skills amongst Japanese resident physicians: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0571-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian S. Heist, Naoki Kishida, Gautam Deshpande, Sugihiro Hamaguchi, Hiroyuki Kobayashi

Abstract

In Western clinical training, formulation of a summary statement (SS) is a core exercise for articulation, evaluation, and improvement of clinical reasoning (CR). In Japanese clinical training, structured guidance in developing CR, including opportunity for SS practice, is uncommon, and the present status of case summarization skills is unclear. We used Virtual Patients (VPs) to explore Japanese junior residents' SS styles and the effectiveness of VPs on improving SS quality. All first-year junior resident physicians at 4 residency programs (n = 54) were assigned randomized sequences of 5 VP modules, rolled out at 6 day intervals. During each module, participants free-texted a case summary and then reviewed a model summary. Thematic analysis was used to identify SS styles and each SS was categorized accordingly. Frequency of SS styles, and SS CR quality determined by 1) an internally developed Key Feature rubric and 2) demonstration of semantic qualification, were compared across modules. Four SS styles were identified: numbered features matched to differential diagnoses, differential diagnoses with supportive comments, feature listing, and narrative summarization. From module #1 to #5, significant increases in the narrative summarization SS style (p = 0.016), SS CR quality score (p = 0.021) and percentage of semantically driven SS (p = 0.003) were observed. Our study of Japanese junior residents identified distinct clinical case summary statement styles, and observed adoption of the narrative summarization style and improvement in the CR quality of summary statements during a series of VP cases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Other 3 8%
Lecturer 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 33%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,000,528
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#660
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,942
of 402,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#15
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 402,481 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.