| Title |
Central venous catheterization training: current perspectives on the role of simulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s142605 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Morgan I Soffler, Margaret M Hayes, C Christopher Smith |
| Abstract |
Simulation is a popular and effective training modality in medical education across a variety of domains. Central venous catheterization (CVC) is commonly undertaken by trainees, and carries significant risk for patient harm when carried out incorrectly. Multiple studies have evaluated the efficacy of simulation-based training programs, in comparison with traditional training modalities, on learner and patient outcomes. In this review, we discuss relevant adult learning principles that support simulation-based CVC training, review the literature on simulation-based CVC training, and highlight the use of simulation-based CVC training programs at various institutions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 31 | 39% |
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 27 June 2022.
All research outputs
#15,995,084
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,128
of 340,227 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 340,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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