| Title |
Measuring Errors and Adverse Events in Health Care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20147.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric J. Thomas, Laura A. Petersen |
| Abstract |
In this paper, we identify 8 methods used to measure errors and adverse events in health care and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. We focus on the reliability and validity of each, as well as the ability to detect latent errors (or system errors) versus active errors and adverse events. We propose a general framework to help health care providers, researchers, and administrators choose the most appropriate methods to meet their patient safety measurement goals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 69% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 46% |
| Scientists | 4 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 356 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 1% |
| United States | 4 | 1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 336 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 68 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 64 | 18% |
| Other | 35 | 10% |
| Researcher | 31 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 26 | 7% |
| Other | 91 | 26% |
| Unknown | 41 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 171 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 16 | 4% |
| Engineering | 14 | 4% |
| Other | 44 | 12% |
| Unknown | 54 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,165,018
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#943
of 8,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,911
of 137,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 137,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.