↓ Skip to main content

Patient safety ward round checklist via an electronic app: implications for harm prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Irish Journal of Medical Science, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Patient safety ward round checklist via an electronic app: implications for harm prevention
Published in
Irish Journal of Medical Science, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11845-017-1687-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Keller, S. Arsenault, M. Lamothe, S. R. Bostan, R. O’Donnell, J. Harbison, C. P. Doherty

Abstract

Patient safety is a value at the core of modern healthcare. Though awareness in the medical community is growing, implementing systematic approaches similar to those used in other high reliability industries is proving difficult. The aim of this research was twofold, to establish a baseline for patient safety practices on routine ward rounds and to test the feasibility of implementing an electronic patient safety checklist application. Two research teams were formed; one auditing a medical team to establish a procedural baseline of "usual care" practice and an intervention team concurrently was enforcing the implementation of the checklist. The checklist was comprised of eight standard clinical practice items. The program was conducted over a 2-week period and 1 month later, a retrospective analysis of patient charts was conducted using a global trigger tool to determine variance between the experimental groups. Finally, feedback from the physician participants was considered. The results demonstrated a statistically significant difference on five variables of a total of 16. The auditing team observed low adherence to patient identification (0.0%), hand decontamination (5.5%), and presence of nurse on ward rounds (6.8%). Physician feedback was generally positive. The baseline audit demonstrated significant practice bias on daily ward rounds which tended to omit several key-proven patient safety practices such as prompting hand decontamination and obtaining up to date reports from nursing staff. Results of the intervention arm demonstrate the feasibility of using the Checklist App on daily ward rounds.

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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Other 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Unspecified 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Unspecified 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 15 38%
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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,830,566
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#740
of 1,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,620
of 330,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#12
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 330,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 53% of its contemporaries.