2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.08.136
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of the New England Spinal Cord Injury Toolkit for Peer-to-Peer Clinical Education

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At the time of publication, the CI Toolkit contains 160 resources, organized into 5 Existing literature describing health professions toolkits focused on interprofessional education, 20 didactic content teaching resources, 21 diagnosis-specific provider service delivery guides, 22,23 and student CE resources [24][25][26] rather than teaching resources for CIs. One study explored the needs for a Web-based CE resources for preceptors and created online clinical teaching modules based on the identified needs from the survey, similar to the CI Toolkit development process.…”
Section: Profile Of the Current CI Toolkitmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…At the time of publication, the CI Toolkit contains 160 resources, organized into 5 Existing literature describing health professions toolkits focused on interprofessional education, 20 didactic content teaching resources, 21 diagnosis-specific provider service delivery guides, 22,23 and student CE resources [24][25][26] rather than teaching resources for CIs. One study explored the needs for a Web-based CE resources for preceptors and created online clinical teaching modules based on the identified needs from the survey, similar to the CI Toolkit development process.…”
Section: Profile Of the Current CI Toolkitmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Resource review: Existing literature described the process of creating toolkits but lacked evidence of ongoing review and responsiveness to the contemporary needs of clinical educators. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] e task force prioritized creation of a transparent resource review process to establish a mechanism for the addition of new resources and to articulate to contributors and users how each resource was reviewed. e evaluation criteria are broad to capture relevant content that is evidenced based as well as content created by CIs based on their personal clinical teaching experiences.…”
Section: Profile Of the Current CI Toolkitmentioning
confidence: 99%