1990
DOI: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)81700-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computerized tracking of emergency medicine resident clinical experience

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
40
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
3
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They found EM-1 residents averaged 0.73 PPH, EM-2 residents averaged 0.85 PPH, and EM-3 residents averaged 1.19 PPH. 8 Our volume data of 0.73, 1.11, and 1.05 PPH fit well within the range of previously reported literature (Table 1).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…They found EM-1 residents averaged 0.73 PPH, EM-2 residents averaged 0.85 PPH, and EM-3 residents averaged 1.19 PPH. 8 Our volume data of 0.73, 1.11, and 1.05 PPH fit well within the range of previously reported literature (Table 1).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Langdorf and Strange published their experience in developing a computerized tracking system for EM residents. 5 Dire and Kietzman reported their experience tracking procedures with a computerized system for nine EM residents over a 36-month residency program. 6 Our results are similar to the experience reported by these authors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[1][2][3] Studies capturing resident experience have shown gaps in clinical exposure. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Many training programs incorporate simulation and online modules to standardize exposure. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Web-based modules and lectures can supplement clinical experience, most effectively when used in conjunction with face-to-face instruction.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%