↓ Skip to main content

The critical care response to a hospital outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection: an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, October 2016
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 (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
Title
The critical care response to a hospital outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection: an observational study
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0203-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hasan M. Al-Dorzi, Abdulaziz S. Aldawood, Raymond Khan, Salim Baharoon, John D. Alchin, Amal A. Matroud, Sameera M. Al Johany, Hanan H. Balkhy, Yaseen M. Arabi

Abstract

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) has caused several hospital outbreaks, including a major outbreak at King Abdulaziz Medical City, a 940-bed tertiary-care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (August-September 2015). To learn from our experience, we described the critical care response to the outbreak. This observational study was conducted at the Intensive Care Department which covered 5 ICUs with 60 single-bedded rooms. We described qualitatively and, as applicable, quantitatively the response of intensive care services to the outbreak. The clinical course and outcomes of healthcare workers (HCWs) who had MERS were noted. Sixty-three MERS patients were admitted to 3 MERS-designated ICUs during the outbreak (peak census = 27 patients on August 25, 2015, and the last new case on September 13, 2015). Most patients had multiorgan failure. Eight HCWs had MERS requiring ICU admission (median stay = 28 days): Seven developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, four were treated with prone positioning, four needed continuous renal replacement therapy and one had extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The hospital mortality of ICU MERS patients was 63.4 % (0 % for the HCWs). In response to the outbreak, the number of negative-pressure rooms was increased from 14 to 38 rooms in 3 MERS-designated ICUs. Patients were managed with a nurse-to-patient ratio of 1:0.8. Infection prevention practices were intensified. As a surrogate, surface disinfectant and hand hygiene gel consumption increased by ~30 % and 17 N95 masks were used per patient/day on average. Family visits were restricted to 2 h/day. Although most ICU staff expressed concerns about acquiring MERS, all reported to work normally. During the outbreak, 27.0 % of nurses and 18.4 % of physicians working in the MERS-designated ICUs reported upper respiratory symptoms, and were tested for MERS-CoV. Only 2/196 (1.0 %) ICU nurses and 1/80 (1.3 %) physician tested positive, had mild disease and recovered fully. The total sick leave duration was 138 days for nurses and 30 days for physicians. Our hospital outbreak of MERS resulted in 63 patients requiring organ support and prolonged ICU stay with a high mortality rate. The ICU response required careful facility and staff management and proper infection control and prevention practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 179 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 15%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Other 17 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 38 21%
Unknown 42 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 16%
Psychology 10 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 5%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 51 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,329,180
of 25,425,223 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#632
of 1,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,581
of 321,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,425,223 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,199 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 321,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.