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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Critical care nurses’ knowledge of alarm fatigue and practices towards alarms: A multicentre study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive & Critical Care Nursing, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.iccn.2018.05.004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Siobhán Casey, Gloria Avalos, Maura Dowling |
| Abstract |
To determine critical care nurses' knowledge of alarm fatigue and practices toward alarms in critical care settings. A cross-sectional survey using an adaptation of The Health Technology Foundation Clinical Alarms Survey. A sample of critical care nurses (n = 250) from 10 departments across six hospitals in Ireland. A response rate of 66% (n = 166) was achieved. All hospital sites reported patient adverse events related to clinical alarms. The majority of nurses (52%, n = 86) did not know or were unsure, how to prevent alarm fatigue. Most nurses (90%, n = 148) agreed that non-actionable alarms occurred frequently, disrupted patient care (91%, n = 145) and reduced trust in alarms prompting nurses to sometimes disable alarms (81%, n = 132). Nurses claiming to know how to prevent alarm fatigue stated they customised patient alarm parameters frequently (p = 0.037). Frequent false alarms causing reduced attention or response to alarms ranked the number one obstacle to effective alarm management; this was followed by inadequate staff to respond to alarms. Only 31% (n = 50) believed that alarm management policies and procedures were used effectively. Alarm fatigue has the potential for serious consequences for patient safety and answering numerous alarms drains nursing resources. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 11 | 35% |
| Ireland | 3 | 10% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 48% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 39% |
| Scientists | 4 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 163 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 27 | 17% |
| Unknown | 64 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 18 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 9% |
| Engineering | 9 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 64 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 12 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,785,643
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Intensive & Critical Care Nursing
#89
of 1,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,336
of 344,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive & Critical Care Nursing
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. 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 344,093 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.