Role of a medical student: patient perspectives
Clinical Teacher, ISSN: 1743-498X, Vol: 14, Issue: 4, Page: 284-288
2017
- 5Citations
- 38Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- CrossRef5
- Captures38
- Readers38
- 38
Article Description
Background: Medical students form an important part of the medical team; however, patients may not be fully aware of their role. Identifying students in the clinical setting is difficult because of their similar attire to other health care professionals. This parity may introduce unethical scenarios where patients may be speaking and consenting to individuals whom they do not recognise as students. Methods: A single-sided questionnaire was given to hospital in-patients during a 12-week period. Questions focused on the role of students. With their opinions, patients were given a list of clinical skills and asked whether or not they would allow a student to carry out these skills on themselves. The list included both required and non-required clinical skills by the General Medical Council (GMC). Results: In total, 101 patients participated in the study: 34 males and 67 females. Age at admittance was 63.4 ± 18.0 years; 74.3 per cent of patients were able to identify a student, although 87.1 per cent believed that students should have a designated uniform. Patients were significantly more likely to allow a student to perform required skills on them, as opposed to non-required skills (p < 0.0001); however, previous contact with a medical student made no difference in the likelihood of consenting to a skill being performed. Identifying students in the clinical setting is difficult. Conclusions: The apparent trade-off between patient safety and providing students with learning opportunities has been of long standing concern. Patients consider GMC-required skills as largely appropriate; however, patients feel that students should be more identifiable, and increasing the awareness of the role and capabilities of a student in patient care is important.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know