| Title |
Testing of Anesthesia Machines and Defibrillators in Healthcare Institutions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-017-0783-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lejla Gurbeta, Zijad Dzemic, Tamer Bego, Ervin Sejdic, Almir Badnjevic |
| Abstract |
To improve the quality of patient treatment by improving the functionality of medical devices in healthcare institutions. To present the results of the safety and performance inspection of patient-relevant output parameters of anesthesia machines and defibrillators defined by legal metrology. This study covered 130 anesthesia machines and 161 defibrillators used in public and private healthcare institutions, during a period of two years. Testing procedures were carried out according to international standards and legal metrology legislative procedures in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The results show that in 13.84% of tested anesthesia machine and 14.91% of defibrillators device performance is not in accordance with requirements and should either have its results be verified, or the device removed from use or scheduled for corrective maintenance. Research emphasizes importance of independent safety and performance inspections, and gives recommendations for the frequency of inspection based on measurements. Results offer implications for adequacy of preventive and corrective maintenance performed in healthcare institutions. Based on collected data, the first digital electronical database of anesthesia machines and defibrillators used in healthcare institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina is created. This database is a useful tool for tracking each device's performance over time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 26% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 9 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#16,478,187
of 25,035,235 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#698
of 1,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,008
of 322,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,035,235 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 322,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.