↓ Skip to main content

Electronic Voting to Improve Morbidity and Mortality Conferences

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
Title
Electronic Voting to Improve Morbidity and Mortality Conferences
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00268-018-4670-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel Zindel, Reto M. Kaderli, Manuel O. Jakob, Michel Dosch, Franziska Tschan, Daniel Candinas, Guido Beldi

Abstract

It is of major importance in clinical surgery to identify potential patterns and specific causes of complications. Therefore, morbidity and mortality meetings (M&M) are widely used to discuss and evaluate deviations from expected outcomes in order to improve surgical practice. Moreover, M&M represent an important tool for continuous medical education. In this study, we introduced an electronic voting system to assess whether anonymity during M&M could limit potential biases due to hierarchical structures or opinion leaders. This study was conducted in the surgical department of a European tertiary care center. During the study period, electronic voting was applied in 412 M&M cases and compared with a baseline of 330 conventional M&M entries. In this interrupted time series, the educational quality and participant satisfaction of the M&M were assessed using surveys before and after the introduction of electronic voting. The surveys were refined using principle component analysis. In addition, the classification of the cause of the complication was recorded. The introduction of electronic voting led to a significant increase in perceived educational quality from 2.63 to 3.36 (p < 0.01), and the overall participant satisfaction increased from 2.6 ± 0.9 to 3.7 ± 1.2 (p < 0.01) on a five-point Likert scale. The frequency of voting shifted from "patient's disease" (before 42.9, after 27.6%, p = 0.04) to "misadventure" (before 1.1, after 16.0%, p < 0.01). The voting frequencies for the causes attributed to "management" and "technical" remained constant. An electronic voting system in M&M meetings increases perceived educational quality and participant satisfaction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 4%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 40 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 22 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 13%
Computer Science 17 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 46 33%
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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,677,741
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#2,756
of 4,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,815
of 332,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#37
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 332,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.