↓ Skip to main content

Emergency Medical Equipment Storage

Overview of attention for article published in Human Factors, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 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
Emergency Medical Equipment Storage
Published in
Human Factors, December 2013
DOI 10.1177/0018720813514605
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Grundgeiger, Bonnie Harris, Nicholas Ford, Michael Abbey, Penelope M. Sanderson, Balasubramanian Venkatesh

Abstract

We tested the effectiveness of an illustrated divider ("the divider") for bedside emergency equipment drawers in an intensive care unit (ICU). In Study I, we assessed whether the divider increases completeness and standardizes the locations of emergency equipment within the drawer. In Study 2, we investigated whether the divider decreases nurses' restocking and retrieval times and decreases their workload. Easy access to fully stocked emergency equipment is important during emergencies. However, inefficient equipment storage and cognitively demanding work settings might mean that drawers are incompletely stocked and access to items is slow. A pre-post-post study investigated drawer completeness and item locations before and after the introduction of the divider to 30 ICU drawers. A subsequent experiment measured item restocking time, item retrieval time, and subjective workload for nurses. At 2 weeks and 10 weeks after the divider was introduced, the completeness of the drawer increased significantly compared with before the divider was introduced. The divider decreased the variability of the locations of the 17 items in the drawer to 16% of its original value. Study 2 showed that restocking times but not retrieval times were significantly faster with the divider present For both tasks, nurses rated their workload lower with the divider. The divider improved the standardization and completeness of emergency equipment. In addition, restocking times and workload were decreased with the divider. Redesigning storage for certain equipment using human factors design principles can help to speed and standardize restocking and ease access to equipment.

X Demographics

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.
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 %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Student > Master 5 15%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 9%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 13 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Psychology 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,517,992
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Human Factors
#1,022
of 1,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,967
of 319,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Factors
#16
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 319,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.