↓ Skip to main content

A generic simulation model for planning critical care resource requirements

Overview of attention for article published in Anaesthesia, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A generic simulation model for planning critical care resource requirements
Published in
Anaesthesia, September 2013
DOI 10.1111/anae.12408
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Steins, S. M. Walther

Abstract

Intensive care capacity planning based on factual or forecasted mean admission numbers and mean length of stay without taking non-linearity and variability into account is fraught with error. Simulation modelling may allow for a more accurate assessment of capacity needs. We developed a generic intensive care simulation model using data generated from anonymised patient records of all admissions to four different hospital intensive care units. The model was modified and calibrated stepwise to identify important parameters and their values to obtain a match between model predictions and actual data. The most important characteristic of the final model was the dependency of admission rate on actual occupancy. Occupancy, coverage and transfers of the final model were found to be within 2% of the actual data for all four simulated intensive care units. We have shown that this model could provide accurate decision support for planning critical care resource requirements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 29%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 9 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Computer Science 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 November 2013.
All research outputs
#14,256,180
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#3,741
of 5,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,201
of 210,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#20
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,126 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 210,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 62% of its contemporaries.