| Title |
Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-380 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karena M Conroy, Doug Elliott, Anthony R Burrell |
| Abstract |
In the intensive care unit (ICU), checklists can be used to support the delivery of quality and consistent clinical care. While studies have reported important benefits for clinical checklists in this context, lack of formal validity testing in the literature prompted the study aim; to develop relevant 'process-of-care' checklist statements, using rigorously applied and reported methods that were clear, concise and reflective of the current evidence base. These statements will be sufficiently instructive for use by physicians during ICU clinical rounds. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 October 2013.
All research outputs
#15,281,593
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,540
of 7,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,740
of 207,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#92
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 207,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.