| Title |
A handoff is not a telegram: an understanding of the patient is co-constructed
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10536 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael D Cohen, Brian Hilligoss, André Carlos Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral |
| Abstract |
Hospital handoffs are believed to be a key locus of communication breakdown that can endanger patient safety and undermine quality of care. Substantial new efforts to better understand handoffs and to improve handoff practices are under way. Many such efforts appear to be seriously hampered, however, by an underlying presumption that the essential function of a handoff is one-way information transmission. Here, we examine social science literature that supports a richer framing of handoff conversations, one that characterizes them as co-constructions of an understanding of the patient. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 | 6 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Russia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 20% |
| Scientists | 3 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 26% |
| Unknown | 22 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 32% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 03 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,274,245
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,079
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,298
of 254,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#4
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 254,150 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.