↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of telemedicine for paediatric retrieval consultations: rationale and study design for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
The effectiveness of telemedicine for paediatric retrieval consultations: rationale and study design for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0546-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel R Armfield, Mark G Coulthard, Anthony Slater, Julie McEniery, Mark Elcock, Robert S Ware, Paul A Scuffham, Mark E Bensink, Anthony C Smith

Abstract

BackgroundIn many health systems, specialist services for critically ill children are typically regionalised or centralised. Studies have shown that high-risk paediatric patients have improved survival when managed in specialist centres and that volume of cases is a predictor of care quality. In acute cases where distance and time impede access to specialist care, clinical advice may be provided remotely by telephone. Emergency retrieval services, attended by medical and nursing staff may be used to transport patients to specialist centres. Even with the best quality retrieval services, stabilisation of the patient and transport logistics may delay evacuation to definitive care. Several studies have examined the use of telemedicine for providing specialist consultations for critically ill children. However, no studies have yet formally examined the clinical effectiveness and economic implications of using telemedicine in the context of paediatric patient retrieval.Methods/DesignThe study is a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial running over 24 months which will compare the use of telemedicine with the use of the telephone for paediatric retrieval consultations between four referring hospitals and a tertiary paediatric intensive care unit. We aim to recruit 160 children for whom a specialist retrieval consultation is required. The primary outcome measure is stabilisation time (time spent on site at the referring hospital by the retrieval team) adjusted for initial risk. Secondary outcome measures are change in patient¿s physiological status (repeated measure, two time points) scored using the Children¿s Emergency Warning Tool; change in diagnosis (repeated measure taken at three time points); change in destination of retrieved patients at the tertiary hospital (general ward or paediatric intensive care unit); retrieval decision, and length of stay in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit for retrieved patients. The trial has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committees of Children¿s Health Services Queensland and The University of Queensland, Australia.DiscussionHealth services are adopting telemedicine, however formal evidence to support its use in paediatric acute care is limited. Generalisable evidence is required to inform clinical use and health system policy relating to the effectiveness and economic implications of the use in telemedicine in paediatric retrieval.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000156886.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 168 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 20%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 48 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 19%
Psychology 8 5%
Engineering 7 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 51 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 November 2014.
All research outputs
#17,731,702
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,273
of 7,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,640
of 258,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#122
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 258,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.