| Title |
A substitution method to improve completeness of events documentation in anesthesia records
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10877-015-9661-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antoine Lamer, Julien De Jonckheere, Romaric Marcilly, Benoît Tavernier, Benoît Vallet, Mathieu Jeanne, Régis Logier |
| Abstract |
AIMS are optimized to find and display data and curves about one specific intervention but is not retrospective analysis on a huge volume of interventions. Such a system present two main limitation; (1) the transactional database architecture, (2) the completeness of documentation. In order to solve the architectural problem, data warehouses were developed to propose architecture suitable for analysis. However, completeness of documentation stays unsolved. In this paper, we describe a method which allows determining of substitution rules in order to detect missing anesthesia events in an anesthesia record. Our method is based on the principle that missing event could be detected using a substitution one defined as the nearest documented event. As an example, we focused on the automatic detection of the start and the end of anesthesia procedure when these events were not documented by the clinicians. We applied our method on a set of records in order to evaluate; (1) the event detection accuracy, (2) the improvement of valid records. For the year 2010-2012, we obtained event detection with a precision of 0.00 (-2.22; 2.00) min for the start of anesthesia and 0.10 (0.00; 0.35) min for the end of anesthesia. On the other hand, we increased by 21.1 % the data completeness (from 80.3 to 97.2 % of the total database) for the start and the end of anesthesia events. This method seems to be efficient to replace missing "start and end of anesthesia" events. This method could also be used to replace other missing time events in this particular data warehouse as well as in other kind of data warehouses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 67% |
| Belgium | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Engineering | 2 | 13% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 February 2015.
All research outputs
#12,621,992
of 22,787,797 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#302
of 670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,620
of 353,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,787,797 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. 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 353,056 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 55% of its contemporaries.