↓ Skip to main content

ICare-ACS (Improving Care Processes for Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome)

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation, November 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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
ICare-ACS (Improving Care Processes for Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome)
Published in
Circulation, November 2017
DOI 10.1161/circulationaha.117.031984
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin P. Than, John W. Pickering, Jeremy M. Dryden, Sally J. Lord, S. Andrew Aitken, Sally J. Aldous, Kate E. Allan, Michael W. Ardagh, John W.N. Bonning, Rosie Callender, Laura R.E. Chapman, Jonathan P. Christiansen, Andre P.J. Cromhout, Louise Cullen, Joanne M. Deely, Gerard P. Devlin, Katherine A. Ferrier, Christopher M. Florkowski, Christopher M.A. Frampton, Peter M. George, Gregory J. Hamilton, Allan S. Jaffe, Andrew J. Kerr, G. Luke Larkin, Richard M. Makower, Timothy J.E. Matthews, William A. Parsonage, W. Frank Peacock, Bradley F. Peckler, Niels C. van Pelt, Louise Poynton, A. Mark Richards, Anthony G. Scott, Mark B. Simmonds, David Smyth, Oliver P. Thomas, Andrew C.Y. To, Stephen A. Du Toit, Richard W. Troughton, Kim M. Yates

Abstract

BACKGROUND : Efforts to safely reduce length of stay for emergency department patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have had mixed success. Few system-wide efforts affecting multiple hospital emergency departments have ever been evaluated. We evaluated the effectiveness of a nationwide implementation of clinical pathways for potential ACS in disparate hospitals. METHODS : This was a multicenter pragmatic stepped-wedge before-and-after trial in 7 New Zealand acute care hospitals with 31 332 patients investigated for suspected ACS with serial troponin measurements. The implementation was a clinical pathway for the assessment of patients with suspected ACS that included a clinical pathway document in paper or electronic format, structured risk stratification, specified time points for electrocardiographic and serial troponin testing within 3 hours of arrival, and directions for combining risk stratification and electrocardiographic and troponin testing in an accelerated diagnostic protocol. Implementation was monitored for >4 months and compared with usual care over the preceding 6 months. The main outcome measure was the odds of discharge within 6 hours of presentation. RESULTS : There were 11 529 participants in the preimplementation phase (range, 284-3465) and 19 803 in the postimplementation phase (range, 395-5039). Overall, the mean 6-hour discharge rate increased from 8.3% (range, 2.7%-37.7%) to 18.4% (6.8%-43.8%). The odds of being discharged within 6 hours increased after clinical pathway implementation. The odds ratio was 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 2.3-2.6). In patients without ACS, the median length of hospital stays decreased by 2.9 hours (95% confidence interval, 2.4-3.4). For patients discharged within 6 hours, there was no change in 30-day major adverse cardiac event rates (0.52% versus 0.44%; P=0.96). In these patients, no adverse event occurred when clinical pathways were correctly followed. CONCLUSIONS : Implementation of clinical pathways for suspected ACS reduced the length of stay and increased the proportions of patients safely discharged within 6 hours. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION : URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ (Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry). Unique identifier: ACTRN12617000381381.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 6 7%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 35 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,199,725
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#4,724
of 21,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,747
of 336,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#109
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 336,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.