↓ Skip to main content

A mixed methods approach to developing and evaluating oncology trainee education around minimization of adverse events and improved patient quality and safety

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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 mixed methods approach to developing and evaluating oncology trainee education around minimization of adverse events and improved patient quality and safety
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0609-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Janssen, Tim Shaw, Lauren Bradbury, Tania Moujaber, Anne Mette Nørrelykke, Jessica A. Zerillo, Ann LaCasce, John Patrick T. Co, Tracy Robinson, Alison Starr, Paul Harnett

Abstract

Adverse events are a significant quality and safety issue in the hospital setting due to their direct impact on patients. Additionally, such events are often handled by junior doctors due to their direct involvement with patients. As such, it is important for health care organizations to prioritize education and training for junior doctors on identifying adverse events and handling them when they occur. The Cancer Cup Challenge is an educational program focuses on quality improvement and adverse event awareness targeting for junior oncology doctors across three international sites. A mixed methodology was used to develop and evaluate the program. The Qstream spaced learning platform was used to disseminate information to participants, as it has been demonstrated to impact on both knowledge and behavior. Eight short case based scenarios with expert feedback were developed by a multidisciplinary advisory committee containing representatives from the international sites. At the conclusion of the course impact on participant knowledge was evaluated using analysis of the metrics collected by the Qstream platform. Additionally, an online survey and semi-structured interviews were used to evaluate engagement and perceived value by participants. A total of 35 junior doctors registered to undertake the Qstream program, with 31 (88.57 %) successfully completing it. Analysis of the Qstream metrics revealed 76.57 % of cases were answered correctly on first attempt. The post-program survey received 17 responses, with 76.47 % indicating cases for the course were interesting and 82.35 % feeling cases were relevant. Finally, 14 participants consented to participate in semi-structured interviews about the program, with feedback towards the course being generally very positive. Our study demonstrates that an online game is well accepted by junior doctors as a method to increase their quality improvement awareness. Developing effective and sustainable training for doctors is important to ensure positive patient outcomes are maintained in the hospital setting. This is particularly important for junior doctors as they are working closely with patients and learning skills and behaviors, which will influence their practice throughout their careers.

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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Researcher 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 28 21%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 14%
Social Sciences 19 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Computer Science 8 6%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 29 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,462,624
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,714
of 3,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,260
of 300,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#45
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 300,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.