↓ Skip to main content

Rapid response teams

Overview of attention for article published in Internal Medicine Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Rapid response teams
Published in
Internal Medicine Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1111/imj.12845
Pubmed ID
Authors

K White, I A Scott, A Vaux, C M Sullivan

Abstract

Rapid response teams (RRT), alternatively termed medical emergency teams (MET), have become part of the clinical landscape in the majority of adult hospitals throughout Australia and New Zealand. These teams aim to bring critical care expertise to the bedside of clinically deteriorating patients residing in general hospital wards with the aim of preventing adverse outcomes, in particular death or cardiorespiratory arrests. While the concept of RRT has considerable face validity, there is little high quality evidence of their effectiveness and much uncertainty as to the optimal methods for identifying patients in need of RRT and calling the RRT (afferent limb) and how, and with whom, the RRT should then respond (efferent limb). Adverse unintended consequences of RRT systems and the opportunity costs involved in maintaining such systems have not been subject to study, amid concerns RRT may be compensating for other potentially remediable system of care failures. This article presents an overview of the current state of play of RRT in hospital practice as they pertain to the care of adult patients and identifies several issues around their implementation and evaluation that should be subject to further research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 11%
Unspecified 4 5%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 18 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 July 2015.
All research outputs
#8,083,380
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Internal Medicine Journal
#854
of 2,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,782
of 399,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal Medicine Journal
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 399,105 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.