↓ Skip to main content

How can we improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of medical device-related incidents in hospitals? A qualitative study of physicians and registered nurses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
How can we improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of medical device-related incidents in hospitals? A qualitative study of physicians and registered nurses
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0886-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Polisena, Anna Gagliardi, Tammy Clifford

Abstract

To explore factors that influence and to identify initiatives to improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of device-related incidents. Semi-structured telephone interviews with 16 health professionals in two tertiary care hospitals were conducted. Purposive sampling was used to identify appropriate study participants. Transcribed interviews were read independently by one individual to identify, define and organize themes and verified by another reviewer. Themes related to incident recognition were the hospital staff's knowledge and professional experience, medical device performance and clinical manifestations of patients, while incident reporting was influenced by error severity, personal attitudes of clinicians, feedback received on the error reported. Physicians often discontinued using medical devices if they malfunctioned. Education and training and the implementation of registries were discussed as important initiatives to improve medical device surveillance in clinical practice. Results from the telephone interviews suggest that multiple factors that influence participation in medical device surveillance activities are consistent with results for medical errors as reported in previous studies. The study results helped to propose a conceptual framework for a medical device surveillance system in a hospital context that would enhance patient safety and health care delivery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Professor 6 8%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 25 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 21%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 15 19%

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 12 June 2015.
All research outputs
#9,574,949
of 15,045,928 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,766
of 5,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,105
of 236,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#114
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,045,928 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 236,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.