↓ Skip to main content

Otitis Externa in Secondary Care: A Change in Our Practice Following a Full Cycle Audit

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
22 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.
Title
Otitis Externa in Secondary Care: A Change in Our Practice Following a Full Cycle Audit
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, September 2017
DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1606621
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhaobo Liu, Mohd Slim, Catherine Scally

Abstract

Introduction  Patients presenting with otitis externa are a common thing in otolaryngology units. However, the practice has not been standardized due to a lack of consensus over the management of this condition in secondary care. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline has been published targeting the general practitioners, but it may be relevant in cases of hospital first-time attenders. Objective  To conduct an audit of the investigative and prescription practice for hospital first-time attenders in our department against the NICE guideline for otitis externa. Methods  The case notes of the patients presenting with otitis externa were reviewed. The data collation included the performance of ear swabs and choice of eardrops. Results  An initial audit showed that ear swabs were sent in 14 out of 19 cases, of which 11 grew either Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Staphylococcus aureus (organisms that are sensitive to empirical treatment). A re-audit showed higher adherence to NICE recommendations, with ear swabs sent in only 3 out of 25 cases. The initial audit also demonstrated Sofradex (Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, France) as the most popular empirical eardrop. Following our recommendation, the re-audit showed that Betnesol-N (GSK, Brentford, UK) was administered in 24 out of 25 cases. Conclusion  We recommend Betnesol-N due to its cost-effectiveness. Ear swabs should be reserved for refractory cases only. Posters and email reminders are effective means of disseminating information within the hospital.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Researcher 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,385,033
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#76
of 647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,154
of 318,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 647 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 318,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 65% of its contemporaries.