↓ Skip to main content

A “Fundamentals” Train-the-Trainer Approach to Building Pediatric Critical Care Expertise in the Developing World

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A “Fundamentals” Train-the-Trainer Approach to Building Pediatric Critical Care Expertise in the Developing World
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00095
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheri S. Crow, Beth A. Ballinger, Mariela Rivera, David Tsibadze, Nino Gakhokidze, Nino Zavrashvili, Matthew J. Ritter, Grace M. Arteaga

Abstract

Pediatric Fundamental Critical Care Support (PFCCS) is an educational tool for training non-intensivists, nurses, and critical care practitioners in diverse health-care settings to deal with the acute deterioration of pediatric patients. Our objective was to evaluate the PFCCS course as a tool for developing a uniform, reproducible, and sustainable model for educating local health-care workers in the optimal management of critically ill children in the Republic of Georgia. Over a period of 18 months and four visits to the country, we worked with Georgian pediatric critical care leadership to complete the following tasks: (1) survey health-care needs within the Republic of Georgia, (2) present representative PFCCS lectures and simulation scenarios to evaluate interest and obtain "buy-in" from key stakeholders throughout the Georgian educational infrastructure, and (3) identify PFCCS instructor candidates. Georgian PFCCS instructor training included the following steps: (1) US PFCCS consultant and content experts presented PFCCS course to Georgian instructor candidates. (2) Simulation learning principles were taught and basic equipment was acquired. (3) Instructor candidates presented PFCCS to Georgian learners, mentored by PFCCS course consultants. Objective evaluation and debriefing with instructor candidates concluded each visit. Between training visits Georgian instructors translated PFCCS slides to the Georgian language. Six candidates were identified and completed PFCCS instructor training. These Georgian instructors independently presented the PFCCS course to 15 Georgian medical students. Student test scores improved significantly from pretest results (n = 14) (pretest: 38.7 ± 7 vs. posttest 62.7 ± 6, p < 0.05). A Likert-type scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not useful or effective, 5 = extremely useful or effective) was used to evaluate each student's perception regarding (1) relevance of course content to clinical work students rated as median (IQR): (a) relevance of PFCCS content to clinical work, 5 (4-5); (b) effectiveness of lecture delivery, 4 (3-4); and (c) value of skill stations for clinical practice, 5 (4-5). Additionally, the mean (±SD) responses were 4.6 (±0.5), 3.7 (±0.6), and 4.5 (±0.6), respectively. Training local PFCCS instructors within an international environment is an effective method for establishing a uniform, reproducible, and sustainable approach to educating health-care providers in the fundamentals of pediatric critical care. Future collaborations will evaluate the clinical impact of PFCCS throughout the Georgian health-care system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 23 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 32 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 07 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,599,717
of 26,363,900 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#654
of 8,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,635
of 343,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#22
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,363,900 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 343,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.