↓ Skip to main content

The effect of an interactive delirium e-learning tool on healthcare workers’ delirium recognition, knowledge and strain in caring for delirious patients: a pilot pre-test/post-test study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
Title
The effect of an interactive delirium e-learning tool on healthcare workers’ delirium recognition, knowledge and strain in caring for delirious patients: a pilot pre-test/post-test study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0537-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elke Detroyer, Fabienne Dobbels, Deborah Debonnaire, Kate Irving, Andrew Teodorczuk, Donna M. Fick, Etienne Joosten, Koen Milisen

Abstract

Studies investigating the effectiveness of delirium e-learning tools in clinical practice are scarce. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of a delirium e-learning tool on healthcare workers' delirium recognition, delirium knowledge and care strain in delirium. A pilot pre-posttest study in a convenience sample of 59 healthcare workers recruited from medical, surgical, geronto-psychiatric and rehabilitation units of a university hospital. The intervention consisted of a live information session on how to use the e-learning tool and, a 2-month self-active learning program. The tool included 11 e-modules integrating knowledge and skill development in prevention, detection and management of delirium. Case vignettes, the Delirium Knowledge Questionnaire, and the Strain of Care for Delirium Index were used to measure delirium recognition, delirium knowledge and experienced care strain in delirium respectively. Subgroup analyses were performed for healthcare workers completing 0 to 6 versus 7 to 11 modules. The delirium recognition score improved significantly (mean 3.1 ± SD 0.9 versus 2.7 ± 1.1; P = 0.04), and more healthcare workers identified hypoactive (P = 0.04) and hyperactive (P = 0.007) delirium in the posttest compared to the pretest phase. A significant difference in the change of recognition levels over time between the 0 to 6 and 7 to 11 module groups was demonstrated (P = 0.03), with an improved recognition level in the posttest phase within the 7 to 11 module group (P = 0.007). After adjustment for potential confounders, this difference in the change over time was not significant (P = 0.07) and no change in recognition levels within the 7 to 11 module group was noted (P = 0.19). The knowledge score significantly improved in the posttest compared to the pretest phase (mean 31.7 ± SD2.6 versus 28.3 ± 4.5; P < 0.001), with a significant increased level within the 7 to 11 module group (unadjusted P < 0.001/adjusted P = 0.02). Overall, no difference between posttest and pretest phases was documented for care strain (P = 0.46). The e-learning tool improved healthcare workers' delirium recognition and knowledge. The effect of the tool is related to its level of completion, but was less explicit after controlling for potential confounders and warrants further investigation. The level of strain did not improve.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 21%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Lecturer 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 31 23%
Unknown 33 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 21%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 6 4%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 35 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 04 November 2021.
All research outputs
#2,369,227
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#344
of 3,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,433
of 402,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#7
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 402,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.