| Title |
Pharmacist proactive medication recommendations using electronic documentation in a UK general critical care unit
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-012-9613-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard S. Bourne, Chui Lynn Choo |
| Abstract |
Specific data on the actual clinical practice of United Kingdom pharmacists in Critical Care are limited. Within the general critical care units of Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, clinical pharmacists have the facility to electronically document, communicate and follow-up proactive recommendations using a Pharmacy Review Form via the Clinical Information System, MetaVision(®). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 140 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 9% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 36 | 25% |
| Unknown | 27 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 11% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 February 2012.
All research outputs
#14,143,189
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#683
of 1,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,852
of 156,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 156,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.