↓ Skip to main content

Simulation in the clinical setting: towards a standard lexicon

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Simulation, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 278)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Simulation in the clinical setting: towards a standard lexicon
Published in
Advances in Simulation, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41077-017-0050-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Glenn D. Posner, Marcia L. Clark, Vincent J. Grant

Abstract

Simulation-based educational activities are happening in the clinical environment but are not all uniform in terms of their objectives, delivery, or outputs. While these activities all provide an opportunity for individual and team training, nuances in the location, timing, notification, and participants impact the potential outcomes of these sessions and objectives achieved. In light of this, there are actually many different types of simulation-based activity that occur in the clinical environment, which has previously all been grouped together as "in situ" simulation. However, what truly defines in situ simulation is how the clinical environment responds in its' natural state, including the personnel, equipment, and systems responsible for care in that environment. Beyond individual and team skill sets, there are threats to patient safety or quality patient care that result from challenges with equipment, processes, or system breakdowns. These have been labeled "latent safety threats." We submit that the opportunity for discovery of latent safety threats is what defines in situ simulation and truly differentiates it from what would be more rightfully called "on-site" simulation. The distinction between the two is highlighted in this article, as well as some of the various sub-types of in situ simulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Other 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 18 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 23 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,099,158
of 25,589,756 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#38
of 278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,020
of 325,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,589,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 325,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.