Training and accrediting international surgeons
British Journal of Surgery, ISSN: 1365-2168, Vol: 106, Issue: 2, Page: e27-e33
2019
- 17Citations
- 2Usage
- 57Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting 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
- Citations17
- Citation Indexes16
- 16
- CrossRef11
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Usage2
- Abstract Views2
- Captures57
- Readers57
- 55
Review Description
Background: Formal international medical programmes (IMPs) represent an evolution away from traditional medical volunteerism, and are based on the foundation of bidirectional exchange of knowledge, experience and organizational expertise. The intent is to develop multidirectional collaborations and local capacity that is resilient in the face of limited resources. Training and accreditation of surgeons continues to be a challenge to IMPs, including the need for mutual recognition of competencies and professional certification. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and Google Scholar™ were searched using the following terms, alone and in combination: ‘credentialing’, ‘education’, ‘global surgery’, ‘international medicine’, ‘international surgery’ and ‘training’. Secondary references cited by original sources were also included. The authors, all members of the American College of Academic International Medicine group, agreed advice on training and accreditation of international surgeons. Results and conclusion: The following are key elements of training and accrediting international surgeons: basic framework built upon a bidirectional approach; consideration of both high-income and low-and middle-income country perspectives; sourcing funding from current sources based on existing IMPs and networks of IMPs; emphasis on predetermined cultural competencies and a common set of core surgical skills; a decentralized global system for verification and mutual recognition of medical training and certification. The global medical system of the future will require the assurance of high standards for surgical education, training and accreditation.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85059929999&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11041; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30620074; https://academic.oup.com/bjs/article/106/2/e27-e33/6120764; https://crin.sluhn.org/ndos_ap/86; https://crin.sluhn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&context=ndos_ap; https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11041; https://academic.oup.com/bjs/article/106/2/e27/6120764
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know