↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative assessment of practitioner perspectives post-introduction of the first Continuous Professional Competence (CPC) guidelines for emergency medical technicians in Ireland

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
A qualitative assessment of practitioner perspectives post-introduction of the first Continuous Professional Competence (CPC) guidelines for emergency medical technicians in Ireland
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12873-015-0037-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shane Knox, Suzanne Dunne, Walter Cullen, Colum P Dunne

Abstract

In November 2013, the Irish Regulator for emergency medical technicians (EMTs) introduced the first mandatory requirement for registrants to demonstrate evidence of continuous professional development (CPD)/continuous professional competence (CPC). This qualitative study assessed the experience of practitioners with CPC-related materials provided to them by the Regulator in addition to identifying perceived or encountered practical challenges and suggested improvements six months following introduction of the requirement. Five fora were utilised, comprising two distinct groupings: a group of student EMTs (n = 62) and four discrete groups of qualified EMTs (total n = 131) all of whom had commenced the newly-introduced CPC process. All 193 volunteers were members of the Civil Defence (an auxiliary/voluntary organisation) and represented a nationwide distribution of personnel. Responses were categorised as 'perceived' challenges to CPC, relating to student EMTs, and 'experienced' challenges to CPC, relating to qualified EMTs. Responses also included suggestions from both groups of EMTs on how to improve the current system and guidance material. Audio/visual recordings were made, transcribed and then analysed using NVivo (version 10). A coding framework was developed which identified unifying themes. All participants agreed that CPC for pre-hospital practitioners was a welcomed initiative believing that CPC activities would help ensure that EMTs maintain or enhance their skills and be better enabled to provide quality care to the patients they might encounter. Two specific areas were identified by both groups as being challenging: 1) the practicalities of completing CPC and 2) the governance and administration of the CPC process. Challenging practicalities included: ability of voluntary EMTs to gain access to operational placements with paramedics and advanced paramedics; the ability to experience the number of patient contacts required and the definition of what constitutes a 'patient contact'. With regard to the governance and administration of CPC, it was suggested that in order to enhance the process, the Regulator should provide: an outline of the CPC audit process; examples of cases studies and reflective practice; templates for portfolios; and should establish a central hub for CPC information. These groups of Irish EMTs appeared keen to participate in continuous professional competence activities. In addition, these EMTs identified areas that, in their opinion, required clarification by the Regulator related to the practicalities of CPC and the governance and administration of CPC. More information, dissemination of sample requirements and further effective engagement with the Regulator could be used to refine the current CPC requirements for EMTs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 18 28%
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 24 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,148,174
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#302
of 748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,993
of 267,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 267,399 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them