↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clinical reasoning and knowledge management in final year medical students: the role of Student-led Grand Rounds

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Clinical reasoning and knowledge management in final year medical students: the role of Student-led Grand Rounds
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/amep.s146175
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Arumaisingam Kandiah

Abstract

The development of clinical reasoning and decision-making skills is often limited in medical school curricula. In reality, medical graduates acquire these skills during their first few years of residency. For many, this can be stressful as they may be working under limited supervision as a part of their rotations. Student-led Grand Rounds was developed to transfer both explicit and tacit knowledge to final year medical students. This pilot project was to apply the principles of knowledge management to allow students to be exposed to the reasoning and decision making of common clinical presentations. Student feedback through questionnaires was collated at the end of the program. Based on feedback and focus groups, modifications were made to produce a stable program in subsequent clinical rotations. Formal feedback was collated from all the 76 students who participated in the first year. This represented 100% of the cohort for this clinical school for that year. There was a 100% response rate as the feedback forms were given and collected at the end of the last session per block. The student responses were both in ratings defined in a feedback forms and in written comments. A total of 74 of the 76 students rated the program highly. They enjoyed the nonthreatening interactions. The remaining two students preferred more didactic teaching. This initiative allows an efficient transfer and utilization of knowledge. This could maximize the acquisition of practical knowledge by medical students as they finish their course in the transition to graduate medical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 32%
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 16 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,770,458
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,574
of 332,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 332,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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