| Title |
Competing and conflicting interests in the care of critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-018-5326-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison E. Turnbull, Sarina K. Sahetya, E. Lee Daugherty Biddison, Christiane S. Hartog, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Dominique D. Benoit, Bertrand Guidet, Rik T. Gerritsen, Mark R. Tonelli, J. Randall Curtis |
| Abstract |
Medical professionals are expected to prioritize patient interests, and most patients trust physicians to act in their best interest. However, a single patient is never a physician's sole concern. The competing interests of other patients, clinicians, family members, hospital administrators, regulators, insurers, and trainees are omnipresent. While prioritizing patient interests is always a struggle, it is especially challenging and important in the ICU setting where most patients lack the ability to advocate for themselves or seek alternative sources of care. This review explores factors that increase the risk, or the perception, that an ICU physician will reason, recommend, or act in a way that is not in their patient's best interest and discusses steps that could help minimize the impact of these factors on patient care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 35% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 15% |
| Canada | 3 | 15% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 20% |
| Scientists | 3 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,123,532
of 24,842,061 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,029
of 5,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,943
of 335,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#56
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,842,061 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 335,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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.