↓ Skip to main content

A tertiary hospital audit of opioids and sedatives administered in the last 24 h of life

Overview of attention for article published in Internal Medicine Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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 tertiary hospital audit of opioids and sedatives administered in the last 24 h of life
Published in
Internal Medicine Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1111/imj.12985
Pubmed ID
Authors

C Douglas, M Clarke, S Alexander, M Khatun

Abstract

To audit the doses of opioids and sedatives administered to patients in the last 24 hours of life in an Australian tertiary hospital and compare results with doses published in New Zealand (NZ) benchmarking studies. To examine the effect of caring for dying patients using a modified version of the Liverpool Care Pathway (mLCP) in respect to doses of opioids and sedatives. A retrospective chart audit of 102 patients who died in a tertiary hospital was carried out over a 3 month period in 2011. Diagnosis, demographic patient characteristics, use of the mLCP, use of subcutaneous infusions and key symptoms were identified. Chi-square and the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test were applied to compare the group differences for categorical and continuous variables as appropriate. Parenteral morphine equivalent daily dose (pMEDD) was calculated.. T- test assessed the variable mean doses of medication and patient characteristics. Of the audited patients, 76.5% died of non-malignant disease. The overall mean dose of midazolam was significantly lower compared to the NZ study pMEDD (6.0mg vs. 20.7mg). The overall mean dose of morphine benchmarked closely with the NZ study (56.5mg Aust.vs. 47.8mg NZ) . Eighty three percent of patients with a malignant diagnosis were supported with the mLCP, compared with 51% of patients with a non-malignant diagnosis. The significance of the lower midazolam doses was postulated including the possibility of inadequate symptom control for patients with a non-malignant diagnosis. The use of the mLCP did not lead to provision of higher doses of medications.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 8 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Psychology 2 10%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 January 2016.
All research outputs
#19,971,836
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Internal Medicine Journal
#2,075
of 2,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,132
of 305,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal Medicine Journal
#31
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 305,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.