Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27433259›Full record

ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2015

Ultrasound clinical progress monitoring: Who, where and how?

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 HarrisonCity University London, School of Health Sciences, Northampton Square, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior to assessment of final ultrasound clinical competency it is important to monitor clinical progress, provide high quality feedback and encourage skills development. The role of the supervisor, mentor and assessor are fundamental to the on-going progress monitoring of ultrasound trainees. This article forms the second part of a larger project which was to elicit ultrasound practitioners' opinions on how progress should be monitored, where and by whom. An on-line questionnaire was used to gain opinions from ultrasound practitioners. Totally, 116 responses were received from professionals with an interest in ultrasound assessment. Results suggested that experienced, qualified ultrasound practitioners should undertake the role of supervisor and assessor, having been prepared for that role by the training centre. Formative monitoring should take place both within the clinical department and possibly the training centre, using a range of methods. Following completion of the training, practitioners should have a preceptorship period to consolidate their knowledge and skills for 3 to 6 months or until further competencies have been demonstrated. Formative progress monitoring should be a recognised part of ultrasound training. Essentially, staff undertaking supervision and assessor roles should be supported and trained to ensure a high quality, consistent learning experience for ultrasound trainees. Additionally, they should provide appropriate feedback to the trainee and education centre.

Indexed as

Clinical competencyformative assessmentsupervisionultrasound

Identifiers

PMID27433259
PMCPMC4760597

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.