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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Graduate nurses’ knowledge of the functions and limitations of pulse oximetry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Nursing, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1111/jocn.13008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marie-Claire Seeley, Lisa McKenna, Kerry Hood |
| Abstract |
To examine nursing graduates' knowledge of functions and limitations of pulse oximetry. Pulse oximetry is a technology ubiquitous in its use in modern clinical settings. Although the technology's ability to accurately reflect hypoxaemia in patients has been established, its contribution to improving patient outcomes is less certain. In addition, experienced nurses have previously demonstrated poor understanding of the limitations of the technology. Pregraduate education has been identified as a potential source of knowledge deficit and has been recommended by authors as an important target of investigation. Cross-sectional, comparative, multicentre study. A previously published and validated tool was used with the addition of eight clinical scenario questions which were validated by an expert panel. Convenience sampling was used to select participants to form one cohort of newly graduated nurses (Cohort 1: n = 210) and a second cohort of nurses completing their intensive postgraduate clinical year (Cohort 2: n = 97). Significant deficits relating to the theoretical factors that affect pulse oximetry application and interpretation were identified. Results suggest some knowledge is negatively correlated with clinical experience and that pregraduate university education appears to influence the ability to effectively apply pulse oximetry knowledge to clinical scenarios. This study provides insight into pulse oximetry knowledge acquisition and deficits of graduate nurses which may inform pre- and postgraduate nurse education. In particular, it suggests that some pulse oximetry knowledge and clinical application of knowledge is not enhanced by clinical experience but rather is currently gained through pregraduate experiences. Inappropriate utilisation and interpretation of pulse oximetry places patients at risk of mismanagement and undetected deterioration. Improvement in pregraduate education around the appropriate use of pulse oximetry may reduce clinical costs, reduce incidents of failure to rescue and improve patient outcomes. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 30% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 13% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 November 2015.
All research outputs
#22,024,252
of 24,571,708 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#5,017
of 5,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,765
of 279,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#47
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,571,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 279,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.