↓ Skip to main content

The incorporation of focused history in checklist for early recognition and treatment of acute illness and injury

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
The incorporation of focused history in checklist for early recognition and treatment of acute illness and injury
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12873-016-0099-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Namita Jayaprakash, Rashid Ali, Rahul Kashyap, Courtney Bennett, Alexander Kogan, Ognjen Gajic

Abstract

Diagnostic error and delay are critical impediments to the safety of critically ill patients. Checklist for early recognition and treatment of acute illness and injury (CERTAIN) has been developed as a tool that facilitates timely and error-free evaluation of critically ill patients. While the focused history is an essential part of the CERTAIN framework, it is not clear how best to choreograph this step in the process of evaluation and treatment of the acutely decompensating patient. An un-blinded crossover clinical simulation study was designed in which volunteer critical care clinicians (fellows and attendings) were randomly assigned to start with either obtaining a focused history choreographed in series (after) or in parallel to the primary survey. A focused history was obtained using the standardized SAMPLE model that is incorporated into American College of Trauma Life Support (ATLS) and Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS). Clinicians were asked to assess six acutely decompensating patients using pre - determined clinical scenarios (three in series choreography, three in parallel). Once the initial choreography was completed the clinician would crossover to the alternative choreography. The primary outcome was the cognitive burden assessed through the NASA task load index. Secondary outcome was time to completion of a focused history. A total of 84 simulated cases (42 in parallel, 42 in series) were tested on 14 clinicians. Both the overall cognitive load and time to completion improved with each successive practice scenario, however no difference was observed between the series versus parallel choreographies. The median (IQR) overall NASA TLX task load index for series was 39 (17 - 58) and for parallel 43 (27 - 52), p = 0.57. The median (IQR) time to completion of the tasks in series was 125 (112 - 158) seconds and in parallel 122 (108 - 158) seconds, p = 0.92. In this clinical simulation study assessing the incorporation of a focused history into the primary survey of a non-trauma critically ill patient, there was no difference in cognitive burden or time to task completion when using series choreography (after the exam) compared to parallel choreography (concurrent with the primary survey physical exam). However, with repetition of the task both overall task load and time to completion improved in each of the choreographies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 26 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 31 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 November 2021.
All research outputs
#14,861,191
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#460
of 757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,457
of 337,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 337,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.