Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27433232›Full record

ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2015

Summative clinical competency assessment: A survey of ultrasound practitioners' views.

Gill Harrison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Point-of-care ultrasound in obstetrics.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2019
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gill HarrisonSchool of Health Sciences, City University London, Northampton Square, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical competency and the assessment of core skills is a crucial element of any programme leading to an award with a clinical skills component. This has become a more prominent feature of current reports on quality health care provision. This project aimed to determine ultrasound practitioners' opinions about how best to assess clinical competency. An on-line questionnaire was sent to contacts from the Consortium for the Accreditation of Sonographic Education and details distributed at the British Medical Ultrasound Society conference in 2011. One hundred and sixteen responses were received from a range of clinical staff with an interest in ultrasound assessment. The majority of respondents suggested that competency assessments should take place in the clinical departments with or without an element of assessment at the education centre. Moderation was an important area highlighted by respondents, with 84% of respondents suggesting that two assessors were required and 66% of those stating some element of external moderation should be included. The findings suggest that respondents' preference is for some clinical competency assessments to take place on routine lists within the clinical department, assessed by two people one of which would be an external assessor. In view of recent reports relating to training and assessment of health care professionals, the ultrasound profession needs to begin the debate about how best to assess clinical competence and ensure appropriate first post-competency of anyone undertaking ultrasound examinations.

Indexed as

assessmentClinical competencypracticeultrasound

Identifiers

PMID27433232
PMCPMC4760562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.