↓ Skip to main content

Emergency Manual Implementation in a Large Academic Anesthesia Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, February 2019
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Emergency Manual Implementation in a Large Academic Anesthesia Practice
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, February 2019
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000003578
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The use of cognitive aids, such as emergency manuals (EMs), improves team performance on critical steps during crisis events. In our large academic anesthesia practice, we sought to broadly implement an EM and subsequently evaluate team member performance on critical steps. We observed the phases of implementing an EM at a large academic anesthesia practice from 2013 to 2016, including the formation of the EM implementation team, identification of preferred EM characteristics, consideration of institution-specific factors, selection of the preferred EM, recognition of logistical barriers, and staff education. Utilization of the EM was tested in a regular clinical environment with all available resources using a standardized verbal simulation of 3 crisis events both preimplementation and 6 months postimplementation. Individual members of the anesthesia team were asked to verbalize interventions for specific crisis events over 60 seconds. We introduced a customized version of the Stanford Emergency Manual on January 26, 2015. Fifty-nine total participants (equal proportion of anesthesiology attending physicians, resident physicians, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and student registered nurse anesthetist staff) were surveyed in the preimplementation phase and 60 in the 6-month postimplementation phase. In the postimplementation phase, a minority (41.7%) utilized the EM for the verbal-simulated crisis events. Those who used the EM performed better than those who did not (median 21.0 critical steps out of a possible 30 total steps [70.0%], interquartile range 19-25 vs 18.0 critical steps verbalized [60.0%], interquartile range 16-20; P < .001). Among all subjects, the median number of critical steps verbalized was 16 (53.3%) preimplementation and 19.5 critical steps (65.0%) postimplementation. Implementation of an EM in a large academic anesthesia practice is not without challenges. While full integration of the EM was not achieved 6 months after implementation, verbalization of critical steps on 3 simulated crisis events improved when the EM was utilized.

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 18 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 26 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 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Other 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 9 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 17 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,414,184
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#1,484
of 11,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,169
of 488,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#21
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 488,003 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.