↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education

Overview of attention for article published in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 575)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
144 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 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
Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40037-017-0376-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer R. Kogan, Rose Hatala, Karen E. Hauer, Eric Holmboe

Abstract

Direct observation of clinical skills is a key assessment strategy in competency-based medical education. The guidelines presented in this paper synthesize the literature on direct observation of clinical skills. The goal is to provide a practical list of Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows about direct observation for supervisors who teach learners in the clinical setting and for educational leaders who are responsible for clinical training programs. We built consensus through an iterative approach in which each author, based on their medical education and research knowledge and expertise, independently developed a list of Do's, Don'ts, and Don't Knows about direct observation of clinical skills. Lists were compiled, discussed and revised. We then sought and compiled evidence to support each guideline and determine the strength of each guideline. A final set of 33 Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows is presented along with a summary of evidence for each guideline. Guidelines focus on two groups: individual supervisors and the educational leaders responsible for clinical training programs. Guidelines address recommendations for how to focus direct observation, select an assessment tool, promote high quality assessments, conduct rater training, and create a learning culture conducive to direct observation. High frequency, high quality direct observation of clinical skills can be challenging. These guidelines offer important evidence-based Do's and Don'ts that can help improve the frequency and quality of direct observation. Improving direct observation requires focus not just on individual supervisors and their learners, but also on the organizations and cultures in which they work and train. Additional research to address the Don't Knows can help educators realize the full potential of direct observation in competency-based education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 144 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 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 291 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 32 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 29 10%
Researcher 25 9%
Student > Master 25 9%
Student > Postgraduate 23 8%
Other 90 31%
Unknown 67 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 7%
Social Sciences 19 7%
Unspecified 9 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 1%
Other 31 11%
Unknown 80 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 December 2021.
All research outputs
#440,803
of 25,714,183 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#10
of 575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,180
of 329,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,714,183 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 329,561 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.