↓ Skip to main content

Maximising harm reduction in early specialty training for general practice: validation of a safety checklist

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Maximising harm reduction in early specialty training for general practice: validation of a safety checklist
Published in
BMC Family Practice, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2296-13-62
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Bowie, John McKay, Moya Kelly

Abstract

Making health care safer is a key policy priority worldwide. In specialty training, medical educators may unintentionally impact on patient safety e.g. through failures of supervision; providing limited feedback on performance; and letting poorly developed behaviours continue unchecked. Doctors-in-training are also known to be susceptible to medical error. Ensuring that all essential educational issues are addressed during training is problematic given the scale of the tasks to be undertaken. Human error and the reliability of local systems may increase the risk of safety-critical topics being inadequately covered. However adherence to a checklist reminder may improve the reliability of task delivery and maximise harm reduction. We aimed to prioritise the most safety-critical issues to be addressed in the first 12-weeks of specialty training in the general practice environment and validate a related checklist reminder.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 6 6%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 37%
Social Sciences 12 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Computer Science 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 18 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 August 2015.
All research outputs
#1,898,445
of 12,806,902 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#258
of 1,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,675
of 119,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,806,902 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 119,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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