↓ Skip to main content

Questionable validity of the catheter-associated urinary tract infection metric used for value-based purchasing

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Infection Control, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 2,088)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Questionable validity of the catheter-associated urinary tract infection metric used for value-based purchasing
Published in
American Journal of Infection Control, July 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.05.024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Calderon, Lindsay E, Kavanagh, Kevin T, Rice, Mara K

Abstract

Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) occur in 290,000 US hospital patients annually, with an estimated cost of $290 million. Two different measurement systems are being used to track the US health care system's performance in lowering the rate of CAUTIs. Since 2010, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) metric has shown a 28.2% decrease in CAUTI, whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention metric has shown a 3%-6% increase in CAUTI since 2009. Differences in data acquisition and the definition of the denominator may explain this discrepancy. The AHRQ metric analyzes chart-audited data and reflects both catheter use and care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention metric analyzes self-reported data and primarily reflects catheter care. Because analysis of the AHRQ metric showed a progressive change in performance over time and the scientific literature supports the importance of catheter use in the prevention of CAUTI, it is suggested that risk-adjusted catheter-use data be incorporated into metrics that are used for determining facility performance and for value-based purchasing initiatives.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 6%
Netherlands 1 6%
Unknown 16 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 50%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Social Sciences 3 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 23 December 2015.
All research outputs
#109,814
of 8,006,495 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Infection Control
#46
of 2,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,012
of 229,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Infection Control
#3
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,006,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 229,091 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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.