↓ Skip to main content

Is “failure to rescue” derived from administrative data in England a nurse sensitive patient safety indicator for surgical care? Observational study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, November 2012
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
4 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
108 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.
Article details
Title
Is “failure to rescue” derived from administrative data in England a nurse sensitive patient safety indicator for surgical care? Observational study
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, November 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.10.016
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

'Failure to rescue'--death after a treatable complication--is used as a nursing sensitive quality indicator in the USA. It is associated with the size of the nursing workforce relative to patient load, for example patient to nurse ratio, although assessments of nurse sensitivity have not previously considered other staff groups. This study aims to assess the potential to derive failure to rescue and a proxy measure, based on long length of stay, from English hospital administrative data. By exploring change in coding practice over time and measuring associations between failure to rescue and factors including staffing, we assess whether two measures of failure to rescue are useful nurse sensitive indicators.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 102 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Professor 8 7%
Other 29 27%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 31%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 21 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 December 2025.
All research outputs
#3,313,747
of 33,704,742 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#466
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,257
of 342,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#8
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,704,742 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 2,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 342,959 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.