↓ Skip to main content

Internists’ and intensivists’ roles in intensive care admission decisions: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
Internists’ and intensivists’ roles in intensive care admission decisions: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3438-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stéphane Cullati, Patricia Hudelson, Bara Ricou, Mathieu Nendaz, Thomas V. Perneger, Monica Escher

Abstract

Intensive care Unit (ICU) admission decisions involve collaboration between internists and intensivists. Clear perception of each other's roles is a prerequisite for good collaboration. The objective was to explore how internists and intensivists perceive their roles during admission decisions. Individual in-depth interviews with 12 intensivists and 12 internists working at a Swiss teaching hospital. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach. Roles could be divided into practical roles and identity roles. Internist and intensivists had the same perception of each other's practical roles. Internists' practical roles were: recognizing signs of severity when the patient becomes acutely ill, calling the intensivist at the right moment, having the relevant information about the patient and having determined the goals of care. Intensivists' practical roles were: assessing the patient on the ward, giving expert advice, making quick decisions, managing access to the ICU, having the final decision power and, sometimes, deciding whether or not to limit treatment. In complex situations, perceived flaws in performing practical roles could create tensions between the doctors. Intensivists' identity roles included those of leader, gatekeeper, life-death decision maker, and supporting colleague doctors (consultant, senior and helper). These roles could be perceived as emotionally burdensome. Internists' identity roles were those of leader and partner. Despite a common perception of each other's practical roles, tensions can arise between internists and intensivists in complex situations of ICU admission decisions. Training in communication skills and interprofessional education interventions aimed at a better understanding of each other roles would improve collaboration.

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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 33 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 19%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 36 36%
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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,236,452
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,561
of 7,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,900
of 331,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#134
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 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 7,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 331,157 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.