| Title |
Preventing Communication Errors in Telephone Medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0199.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna B. Reisman, Karen E. Brown |
| Abstract |
Errors in telephone communication can result in outcomes ranging from inconvenience and anxiety to serious compromises in patient safety. Although 25% of interactions between physicians and patients take place on the telephone, little has been written about telephone communication and medical mishaps. Similarly, training in telephone medicine skills is limited; only 6% of residency programs teach any aspect of telephone medicine. Increasing familiarity with common telephone challenges with patients may help physicians decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes. We use case vignettes to highlight communication errors in common telephone scenarios. These scenarios include giving sensitive test results, requests for narcotics, managing ill patients who are not sick enough for the emergency room, dealing with late-night calls, communicating with unintelligible patients, and handling calls from family members. We provide management strategies to minimize the occurrence of these errors. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 17% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,754,462
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,638
of 8,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,229
of 68,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#22
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 68,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 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 50% of its contemporaries.