↓ Skip to main content

Introductions During Time-outs: Do Surgical Team Members Know One Another's Names?

Overview of attention for article published in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
39 X users

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Introductions During Time-outs: Do Surgical Team Members Know One Another's Names?
Published in
Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, April 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.03.001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Introductions are the first item of the time-out in the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC). It has yet to be established that surgical teams use colleagues' names or consider the use of names important. A study was conducted to determine if using the SSC has a measurable impact on name retention and to assess if operating room (OR) personnel believe it is important to know the names of their colleagues or for their colleagues to know theirs. All OR personnel were individually interviewed at the end of 25 surgical cases in which the SSC was used. They were asked (1) to name each OR participant, and (2) if they believed it is important to know the names of their team members and (3) for their team members to know their name. Of the 150 OR personnel interviewed, 147 (98%) named the surgery attending correctly. The surgery attending named only 44% of other OR staff (p <0.001). Only 62% of the OR staff correctly named the anesthesiology attending. The anesthesiology resident was the least well known but was able to name 82% of the others. The anesthesiology attending named his or her resident 100% of the time; the surgery attending correctly named his or her resident only 68% of the time (p = 0.002). This study suggests that OR personnel may consider introductions to be another bureaucratic hurdle instead of the safety check they were designed to be. It appears that this first step of the time-out is often being performed perfunctorily.

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 39 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 72 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 %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 22 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 26 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 21 August 2025.
All research outputs
#1,349,363
of 34,518,147 outputs
Outputs from Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety
#99
of 1,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,073
of 355,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 355,176 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 69% of its contemporaries.