↓ Skip to main content

Construction of a tool to measure perceptions about the use of the World Health Organization Safe Surgery Checklist Program

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Construction of a tool to measure perceptions about the use of the World Health Organization Safe Surgery Checklist Program
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), July 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.11.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis Antonio dos Santos Diego, Fabiane Cardia Salman, João Henrique Silva, Julio Cezar Brandão, Getúlio de Oliveira Filho, Antonio Fernando Carneiro, Airton Bagatini, José Mariano de Moraes

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended greater attention to patient safety, particularly regarding preventable adverse events. The Safe Surgery Saves Lives (CSSV) program was released recommending the application of a surgical checklist for items on the safety of procedures. The checklist implementation reduced the hospital mortality rate in the first 30 days. In Brazil, we found no studies of anesthesiologists' adherence to the practice of the checklist. The main objective was to develop a tool to measure the attitude of anesthesiologists and residents regarding the use of checklist in the perioperative period. This was a cross-sectional study performed during the 59th CBA in BH/MG, whose participants were enrolled physicians who responded to the questionnaire with quantitative epidemiological approach. From the sample of 459 participants who answered the questionnaire, 55% were male, 44.2% under 10 years of practice, and 15.5% with over 30 years of medical school completion. Seven items with 78% reliability coefficient were selected. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups of anesthesiologists who reported using the instrument in less or more than 70% of patients, indicating that the attitude questionnaire discriminates between these two groups of professionals. The seven items questionnaire showed adequate internal consistency and a well-defined factor structure, and can be used as a tool to measure the anesthesiologists' perceptions about the checklist usefulness and applicability.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 7 12%
Librarian 6 10%
Other 4 7%
Other 17 29%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 7 12%

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 18 July 2016.
All research outputs
#11,142,688
of 12,526,623 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#88
of 109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,050
of 265,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,526,623 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 109 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 265,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.