↓ Skip to main content

Intraoperative fluid management guided by oesophageal Doppler monitoring

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Intraoperative fluid management guided by oesophageal Doppler monitoring
Published in
British Medical Journal, May 2011
DOI 10.1136/bmj.d3016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Kuper, Stuart J Gold, Colin Callow, Tanviha Quraishi, Sarah King, Aundrea Mulreany, Michele Bianchi, Daniel H Conway

Abstract

Fluid management during major surgery poses a challenge to the surgical team as postoperative complications are often related to giving the wrong amount of intravenous fluid. Postoperative morbidity can be reduced by using the oesophageal Doppler cardiac output monitor to individualise fluid administration, but this technology has not been widely adopted. A campaign for adopting this technology in major surgical specialties explored clinical and managerial barriers throughout the procurement and implementation process. We compared patient outcomes 12 months before implementation and after implementation. Three large hospitals in England with different size, geographical location, and case mix. Project leads at each site included a consultant anaesthetist, a divisional manager, and an audit facilitator. A business case was prepared by each team with support from NHS Technology Adoption Centre, allowing senior management to overcome the unequal spread of costs versus benefits. A survey of anaesthetists revealed concerns about familiarity with the device, which we dealt with by clinicians volunteering to "champion" the technique, supported by standard training provided by the manufacturer. We encouraged appropriate use of the technology by collecting intraoperative patient related data and postoperative patient outcomes and by giving regular, timely feedback. The key outcome measure was length of hospital stay. In-hospital mortality, readmission, and reoperation rates were also recorded. Process measures were use of monitors and change in stroke volume during surgery. EFFECTS OF THE CHANGE: We compared 649 patients after implementation across all sites with 658 matched cases before implementation. Use of Doppler increased from 11% to 65% of eligible operations, with a 3.7 day reduction in total length of stay. Length of stay was reduced at each site, and in most specialties. Concurrent improvements in patient care could have contributed to these findings. The only sign of harm from the intervention was one episode of pulmonary oedema. Mortality, readmission, and reoperation rates all fell non-significantly. Managerial barriers consisted of silo budgeting, difficulties with preparing a business case, and fears about uncontrolled implementation. By collecting outcome data, we convinced senior managers to support and sustain investment. Clinical barriers consisted mainly of scepticism regarding clinical effectiveness and worries about training. Clinicians "championing" the technology took on responsibility for data collection, education, advocacy, and spanning boundaries. When barriers to adoption of oesophageal Doppler monitoring are overcome, outcome improvements suggested by research can be replicated in the real world. The project generated a web based guide (www.howtowhyto.nhs.uk) to provide tools and resources to support implementation.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 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 %
Belgium 2 2%
New Zealand 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 105 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Other 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 25 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 48%
Psychology 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 28 25%
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 03 June 2014.
All research outputs
#9,598,834
of 34,362,729 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#39,906
of 75,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,049
of 162,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#141
of 385 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,362,729 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 75,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 162,919 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 385 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.