↓ Skip to main content

A Retrospective Evaluation of Critical Care Blood Culture Yield – Do Support Services Contribute to the “Weekend Effect”?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
A Retrospective Evaluation of Critical Care Blood Culture Yield – Do Support Services Contribute to the “Weekend Effect”?
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0141361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Morton, Shankara Nagaraja, Andrea Collins, Shaun H. Pennington, John D. Blakey

Abstract

The "weekend effect" describes an increase in adverse outcomes for patients admitted at the weekend. Critical care units have moved to higher intensity working patterns to address this with some improved outcomes. However, support services have persisted with traditional working patterns. Blood cultures are an essential diagnostic tool for patients with sepsis but yield is dependent on sampling technique and processing. We therefore used blood culture yield as a surrogate for the quality of support service provision. We hypothesized that blood culture yields would be lower over the weekend as a consequence of reduced support services. We performed a retrospective observational study examining 1575 blood culture samples in a university hospital critical care unit over a one-year period. Patients with positive cultures had, on average, higher APACHE II scores (p = 0.015), longer durations of stay (p = 0.03), required more renal replacement therapy (p<0.001) and had higher mortality (p = 0.024). Blood culture yield decreased with repeated sampling with an increased proportion of contaminants. Blood cultures were 26.7% less likely to be positive if taken at the weekend (p = 0.0402). This effect size is the equivalent to the impact of sampling before and after antibiotic administration. Our study demonstrates that blood culture yield is lower at the weekend. This is likely caused by delays or errors in incubation and processing, reflecting the reduced provision of support services at the weekend. Reorganization of services to address the "weekend effect" should acknowledge the interdependent nature of healthcare service delivery.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Other 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,055,403
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#58,152
of 194,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,692
of 283,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,141
of 5,543 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 283,279 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,543 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.