↓ Skip to main content

The Hidden Costs of Reconciling Surgical Sponge Counts

Overview of attention for article published in AORN Journal, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 2,208)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
The Hidden Costs of Reconciling Surgical Sponge Counts
Published in
AORN Journal, October 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.aorn.2015.09.002
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Retained surgical sponges are serious adverse events that can result in negative patient outcomes. The primary method of prevention is the sponge count. Searching for sponges to reconcile counts can result in inefficient use of OR time. The purpose of this descriptive study was to estimate the cost of nonproductive OR time (ie, time spent not moving forward with the surgical procedure) spent reconciling surgical sponge counts and the cost of using radiography to rule out the presence of retained sponges. We included 13,322 patient surgeries during a nine-month period. Perioperative personnel required from one to 90 minutes of additional time to reconcile each of 212 incorrect/unresolved counts. The total annualized cost of OR time spent searching for sponges and ruling out the presence of potentially retained sponges using radiography was $219,056. These costs should be included in comprehensive cost analyses when considering alternatives to supplement the surgical count.

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 51 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 %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Engineering 5 10%
Computer Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 16 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 24 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,374,556
of 26,877,152 outputs
Outputs from AORN Journal
#49
of 2,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,823
of 295,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AORN Journal
#1
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,877,152 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 2,208 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 295,880 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 98% of its contemporaries.