↓ Skip to main content

Quality of Care in Humanitarian Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
Title
Quality of Care in Humanitarian Surgery
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, April 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00268-011-1084-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn M. Chu, Miguel Trelles, Nathan P. Ford

Abstract

Humanitarian surgical programs are set up de novo, within days or hours in emergency or disaster settings. In such circumstances, insuring quality of care is extremely challenging. Basic structural inputs such as a safe structure, electricity, clean water, a blood bank, sterilization equipment, a post-anesthesia recovery unit, appropriate medications should be established. Currently, no specific credentials are needed for surgeons to operate in a humanitarian setting; the training of more humanitarian surgeons is desperately needed. Standard perioperative protocols for the humanitarian setting after common procedures such as Cesarean section, burn care, open fractures, and amputations and antibiotic prophylaxis, and post-operative pain management must be developed. Outcome data, especially long-term outcomes, are difficult to collect as patients often do not return for follow-up and may be difficult to trace; standard databases for post-operative infections and mortality rates should be established. Checklists have recently received significant attention as an instrument to support the improvement of surgical quality; knowing which items are most applicable to humanitarian settings remains unknown. In conclusion, the quality of surgical services in humanitarian settings must be regulated. Many other core medical activities of humanitarian organizations such as therapeutic feeding, mass vaccination, and the treatment of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus, are subject to rigorous reporting of quality indicators. There is no reason why surgery should be exempted from quality oversight. The surgical humanitarian community should pull together before the next disaster strikes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Niger 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 147 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Other 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 37 24%
Unknown 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 47%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Engineering 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 32 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 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,301,053
of 23,755,107 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,391
of 4,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,395
of 111,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#9
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,755,107 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 111,118 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 70% of its contemporaries.