↓ Skip to main content

Development of a position statement for Australian critical care nurse education

Overview of attention for article published in Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses., September 2018
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Development of a position statement for Australian critical care nurse education
Published in
Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses., September 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.aucc.2018.08.001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Position statements are used by large organisations such as the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses to publically present an official philosophy or beliefs and to propose recommendations. Position statements are increasingly used by health departments and healthcare facilities to allocate resources and to guide and audit nursing practice, yet there are limited resources on the process of their development. A position statement should help readers better understand the issue, communicate solutions to problems, and inform decision-making. It should be supported by the highest level of evidence available and reflect the organisation's governing objectives and goals. In this article, we describe the structured approach used to develop a position statement for Australian critical care nurse education. The formation of an expert advisory panel, synthesis of available evidence using Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review methodology, use of Donabedian's structure-process-outcomes quality framework as a theoretical approach, and multiple layers of consensus building and consultation enabled the development of an important critical care document and informed an implementation plan. The framework and processes we have outlined in this discussion article may provide a useful starting point for other professional organisations wishing to develop similar position statements.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Librarian 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 15 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 35%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 16 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 13 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,768,769
of 34,040,673 outputs
Outputs from Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses.
#111
of 1,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,645
of 375,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses.
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,040,673 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 375,750 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 71% of its contemporaries.