↓ Skip to main content

CareTrack Kids—part 3. Adverse events in children's healthcare in Australia: study protocol for a retrospective medical record review

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
CareTrack Kids—part 3. Adverse events in children's healthcare in Australia: study protocol for a retrospective medical record review
Published in
BMJ Open, April 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007750
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter D Hibbert, Andrew R Hallahan, Stephen E Muething, Peter Lachman, Tamara D Hooper, Louise K Wiles, Adam Jaffe, Les White, Gavin R Wheaton, William B Runciman, Sarah Dalton, Helena M Williams, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Abstract

A high-quality health system should deliver care that is free from harm. Few large-scale studies of adverse events have been undertaken in children's healthcare internationally, and none in Australia. The aim of this study is to measure the frequency and types of adverse events encountered in Australian paediatric care in a range of healthcare settings. A form of retrospective medical record review, the Institute of Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool, will be modified to collect data. Records of children aged <16 years managed during 2012 and 2013 will be reviewed. We aim to review 6000-8000 records from a sample of healthcare practices (hospitals, general practices and specialists). Human Research Ethics Committee approvals have been received from the Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, and the Women's and Children's Hospital Network in South Australia. An application is under review with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The authors will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and undertake national and international oral presentations to researchers, clinicians and policymakers.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Other 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 17 36%
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 15 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,227,016
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#15,555
of 22,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,684
of 264,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#226
of 324 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 264,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 324 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.