↓ Skip to main content

Educational strategies to improve adherence to patient identification

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Educational strategies to improve adherence to patient identification
Published in
Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem, December 2015
DOI 10.1590/1983-1447.2015.04.54289
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of educational actions on the results of an adherence indicator while checking patient identification wristbands before high-risk care. This is a descriptive and exploratory study that was conducted in a large university hospital between January 2013 and December 2014, where 6,201 patients were interviewed. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. The analysis and monitoring of the adherence indicator in patient identification wristbands showed a tendency to increased percentage along the study period, from 42.9% to 57.8% between January and April 2013,and from 81.38% to 94.37% between September and December 2014. Teaching strategies based on staff awareness improved the professionals' adherence to checking patient ID wristbands. In addition, this result can contribute to strengthening the safety culture within the institution.

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 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 15 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 August 2016.
All research outputs
#19,154,203
of 27,774,969 outputs
Outputs from Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem
#104
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,121
of 402,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,774,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 402,250 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.