↓ Skip to main content

Estimating Time Physicians and Other Health Care Workers Spend with Patients in an Intensive Care Unit Using a Sensor Network

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 10,574)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
98 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
268 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
Estimating Time Physicians and Other Health Care Workers Spend with Patients in an Intensive Care Unit Using a Sensor Network
Published in
American Journal of Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.03.015
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Time and motion studies have been used to investigate how much time various healthcare professionals spend with patients as opposed to performing other tasks. However, the majority of such studies are done in outpatient settings, and rely on surveys (which are subject to recall bias) or human observers (which are subject to observation bias). Our goal was to accurately measure the time physicians, nurses, and critical support staff in a medical intensive care unit spend in direct patient contact using a novel method that does not rely on self-report or human observers. We used a network of stationary and wearable mote-based sensors to electronically record location and contacts among healthcare workers and patients under their care in a 20-bed intensive care unit for a 10-day period covering both day and night shifts. Location and contact data were used to classify the type of task being performed by healthcare workers. For physicians, 14.73% (17.96%) of their time in the unit during the day shift (night shift) was spent in patient rooms, compared to 40.63% (30.09%) spent in the physician work room; the remaining 44.64% (51.95%) of their time was spent elsewhere. For nurses, 32.97% (32.85%) of their time on unit was spent in patient rooms, with an additional 11.34% (11.79%) spent just outside patient rooms. They spent 11.58% (13.16%) of their time at the nurses' station and 23.89% (24.34%) elsewhere in the unit. From a patient's perspective, we found that care times, defined as time with at least one healthcare worker of a designated type in their ICU room, were distributed as follows: 13.11% (9.90%) with physicians, 86.14% (88.15%) with nurses, and 8.14% (7.52%) with critical support staff (e.g., respiratory therapists, pharmacists). Physicians, nurses, and critical support staff spend very little of their time in direct patient contact in an intensive care unit setting, similar to reported observations in both outpatient and inpatient settings. Not surprisingly, nurses spend far more time with patients than physicians. Additionally, physicians spend more than twice as much time in the physician work room (where electronic medical record review and documentation occurs) than the time they spend with all of their patients combined.

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 9 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 268 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 268 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Master 25 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Researcher 17 6%
Other 11 4%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 118 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 49 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 11%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 33 12%
Unknown 132 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 773. 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 29 July 2025.
All research outputs
#31,658
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Medicine
#23
of 10,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#588
of 372,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Medicine
#1
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 372,527 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.