↓ Skip to main content

Impact of random safety analyses on structure, process and outcome indicators: multicentre study

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, February 2017
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Impact of random safety analyses on structure, process and outcome indicators: multicentre study
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0245-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

María Bodí, Iban Oliva, Maria Cruz Martín, Maria Carmen Gilavert, Carlos Muñoz, Montserrat Olona, Gonzalo Sirgo

Abstract

To assess the impact of a real-time random safety tool on structure, process and outcome indicators. Prospective study conducted over a period of 12 months in two adult patient intensive care units. Safety rounds were conducted three days a week ascertaining 37 safety measures (grouped into 10 blocks). In each round, 50% of the patients and 50% of the measures were randomized. The impact of this safety tool was analysed on indicators of structure (safety culture, healthcare protocols), process (improvement proportion related to tool application, IPR) and outcome (mortality, average stay, rate of catheter-related bacteraemias and rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia, VAP). A total of 1214 patient-days were analysed. Structure indicators: the use of the safety tool was associated with an increase in the safety climate and the creation/modification of healthcare protocols (sedation/analgesia and weaning). Process indicators: Twelve of the 37 measures had an IPR > 10%; six showed a progressive decrease in the IPR over the study period. Nursing workloads and patient severity on the day of analysis were independently associated with a higher IPR in half of the blocks of variables. Outcome indicators: A significant decrease in the rate of VAP was observed. The real-time random safety tool improved the care process and adherence to clinical practice guidelines and was associated with an improvement in structure, process and outcome indicators.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 67 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Computer Science 4 6%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 16 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,188,521
of 23,560,187 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#132
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,347
of 312,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,560,187 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. 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 312,120 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.