↓ Skip to main content

A multi-center prospective cohort study of patient transfers from the intensive care unit to the hospital ward

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
A multi-center prospective cohort study of patient transfers from the intensive care unit to the hospital ward
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00134-017-4910-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry T. Stelfox, Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Peter M. Dodek, Alexis F. Turgeon, Alan J. Forster, Francois Lamontagne, Rob A. Fowler, Andrea Soo, Sean M. Bagshaw

Abstract

To provide a 360-degree description of ICU-to-ward transfers. Prospective cohort study of 451 adults transferred from a medical-surgical ICU to a hospital ward in 10 Canadian hospitals July 2014-January 2016. Transfer processes documented in the medical record. Patient (or delegate) and provider (ICU/ward physician/nurse) perspectives solicited by survey 24-72 h after transfer. Medical records (100%) and survey responses (ICU physicians-80%, ICU nurses-80%, ward physicians-46%, ward nurses-64%, patients-74%) were available for most transfers. The median time from initiation to completion of transfer was 25 h (IQR 6-52). ICU physicians and nurses reported communicating with counterparts via telephone (78 and 75%) when transfer was requested (82 and 24%) or accepted (31 and 59%) and providing more elements of clinical information than ward physicians (mean 4.7 vs. 3.9, p < 0.001) and nurses (5.0 vs. 4.4, p < 0.001) reported receiving. Patients were more likely to report satisfaction with the transfer when they received more information (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18-1.48), had their questions addressed (OR 3.96, 95% CI 1.33-11.84), met the ward physician prior to transfer (OR 4.61, 95% CI 2.90-7.33), and were assessed by a nurse within 1 h of ward arrival (OR 4.70, 95% CI 2.29-9.66). Recommendations for improvement included having a documented care plan travel with the patient (all stakeholders), standardized face-to-face handover (physicians), avoiding transfers at shift change (nurses) and informing patients about pending transfers in advance (patients). ICU-to-ward transfers are characterized by failures of patient flow and communication; experienced differently by patients, ICU/ward physicians and nurses, with distinct suggestions for improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Master 13 12%
Other 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 32 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Unspecified 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 35 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 12 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,580,023
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,374
of 5,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,516
of 321,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#22
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 321,788 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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 71% of its contemporaries.