↓ Skip to main content

Simulation-based training for determination of brain death by pediatric healthcare providers

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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-based training for determination of brain death by pediatric healthcare providers
Published in
SpringerPlus, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1211-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takashi Araki, Hiroyuki Yokota, Kotaro Ichikawa, Toshio Osamura, Akira Satomi, Tomomitsu Tsuru, Minoru Umehara, Takehiro Niitsu, Tsuyoshi Yamamoto, Kazutaka Nishiyama

Abstract

Low competency for determination of brain death (BD) and unfamiliarity with Japanese BD (JBD) criteria among pediatricians were highlighted in previous nationwide studies. Because the JBD criteria were amended in 2010 to allow organ donation from pediatric brain-dead donors, we created a 2-day training course to assess knowledge and improve skill in the determination and diagnosis of pediatric BD. The course consisted of two modules: a multistation round session and a group discussion session, and was bookended by a before and after 20-question test. In the multistation round session, participants rotated between stations staffed by expert faculty members. For hands-on skill development, we used the Sim Junior 3G™ simulation mannequin (Laerdal Medical, Wappingers Falls, NY, USA) for structured simulations. In the group discussion session, we implemented simulation-based role playing to practice decision making in prepared scenarios of complicated clinical situations. We investigated the participants' impressions of the course by self-scoring and questionnaires. Of 147 pediatric healthcare providers from multiple specialties who participated in this course, 145 completed the entire process. The course was evaluated in three aspects with self-scoring and questionnaires: (1) value (4.58 ± 0.64; range 1-5); (2) time schedule (2.40 ± 0.61; range 1-3); and (3) difficulty (2.89 ± 0.43; range 1-5). Finally, participants scored the entire course program (9.64 ± 1.69; range 1-11). Various positive feedbacks were obtained from a total of 93 participants. Post-test scores (83.6 %) were significantly higher than pre-test scores (62.9 %). This simulation-based course represents an effective method to train pediatric healthcare providers in determining BD in Japan and may improve baseline knowledge of BD among participants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 23%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 23%
Engineering 2 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 November 2015.
All research outputs
#4,052,005
of 9,149,863 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#475
of 1,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,286
of 232,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#17
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,149,863 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 54th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,680 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 232,302 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.