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 |
Interruptions and Blood Transfusion Checks: Lessons from the Simulated Operating Room
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anesthesia and analgesia, January 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1213/ane.0b013e31818e841a |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Liu, Tobias Grundgeiger, Penelope M. Sanderson, Simon A. Jenkins, Terrence A. Leane |
| Abstract |
Interruptions occur frequently in the operating room with both positive and negative consequences. Interruptions can distract anesthesiologists from safety-critical tasks, such as the pretransfusion blood check. In a simulated operating room, 12 anesthesiologists requested blood as part of a "bleeding patient" scenario. They were distracted while their assistant accepted delivery of the product and began transfusing without performing the standard check. Anesthesiologists who immediately engaged with the interruption failed to notice the omission, whereas those who rejected or deferred the interruption all noted and remedied the omitted check (P < 0.05). We discuss the role of displays and strategies on safety. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 60 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 37% |
| Engineering | 7 | 10% |
| Psychology | 7 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
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 14 July 2010.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#6,050
of 8,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,101
of 183,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#30
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 183,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.