↓ Skip to main content

Admission of medical patients from the emergency department: An assessment of the attitudes, perspectives and practices of internal medicine and emergency medicine trainees

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Medicine Australasia, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Admission of medical patients from the emergency department: An assessment of the attitudes, perspectives and practices of internal medicine and emergency medicine trainees
Published in
Emergency Medicine Australasia, May 2016
DOI 10.1111/1742-6723.12604
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean Lawrence, Clair Sullivan, Nadia Patel, Lyndall Spencer, Michael Sinnott, Rob Eley

Abstract

We sought to obtain a deeper understanding of the differing needs and expectations of inpatient and ED medical staff regarding the admission process for medical patients. Online questionnaire regarding their attitudes to and perceptions of various aspects of the admission process was used. The setting is a tertiary 640-bed adult hospital with over 60 000 ED presentations per year and an inpatient admission rate of 30%. A total of 42 out of 56 (75%) internal medical trainees (IMT) felt that the ED admission workup standard was lower or much lower than the inpatient standard; however, 10 of 16 (62.5%) ED trainees (EDT) thought it was similar (P = 0.009). Regarding why IMT order additional tests in the ED, the major reason supported by IMT was to 'identify or exclude urgent pathology' (53/56, 96.4%); however, this reason ranked only fifth for EDT (2/16, 12.5%) who ranked 'to ensure nothing was missed' (12/15, 80%) first. A total of 24 out of 56 (42.8%) IMT felt that if ED admissions were enacted without IMT review, inappropriate admissions to hospital would occur regularly although only one of 16 EDT (6.3%) agreed (P = 0.025). A total of 14 out of 16 (87.5%) EDT but only 16 of 56 (23.2%) IMT were comfortable with admissions occurring without inpatient review in the ED (P < 0.001). The top two perceived barriers to a smooth and timely admission process for IMT were patient instability (34/43, 79.1%) and inadequate ED workup (37/49, 75.5%); for EDT, they were excessive IMT workload (11/14, 78.6%) and referral close to the end of an IMT shift (7/11, 63.6%). Substantial barriers to more harmonious admission processes exist. A 'paradigm shift' where roles and responsibilities are clear might be required. Defusing tension across the ED-inpatient interface should improve efficiency and ensure that patient outcomes remain the focus.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 11 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,825,375
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Australasia
#842
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,564
of 340,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Australasia
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 340,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.