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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How to perform a root cause analysis for workup and future prevention of medical errors: a review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient Safety in Surgery, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13037-016-0107-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ryan Charles, Brandon Hood, Joseph M. Derosier, John W. Gosbee, Ying Li, Michelle S. Caird, J. Sybil Biermann, Mark E. Hake |
| Abstract |
Providing quality patient care is a basic tenant of medical and surgical practice. Multiple orthopaedic programs, including The Patient Safety Committee of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), have been implemented to measure quality of surgical care, as well as reduce the incidence of medical errors. Structured Root Cause Analysis (RCA) has become a recent area of interest and, if performed thoroughly, has been shown to reduce surgical errors across many subspecialties. There is a paucity of literature on how the process of a RCA can be effectively implemented. The current review was designed to provide a structured approach on how to conduct a formal root cause analysis. Utilization of this methodology may be effective in the prevention of medical errors. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 28% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 11% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 22% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 244 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 244 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 46 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 16% |
| Researcher | 15 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 17% |
| Unknown | 78 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 17% |
| Engineering | 9 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 34 | 14% |
| Unknown | 89 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 11 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,709,062
of 24,969,131 outputs
Outputs from Patient Safety in Surgery
#25
of 248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,664
of 327,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Safety in Surgery
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,969,131 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 327,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them