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 |
Prospective evaluation of inappropriate unable-to-assess CAM-ICU documentations of critically ill adult patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Intensive Care, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40560-015-0119-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kimberly J. Terry, Kevin E. Anger, Paul M. Szumita |
| Abstract |
Delirium occurs in the intensive care unit and identification is often performed using a validated assessment tool such as the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) patients. The CAM-ICU has three ratings: positive, negative, and unable to assess (UTA). Patients may often be assigned UTA when it is inappropriate given the level of sedation or medical condition. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rate of inappropriate UTA CAM-ICU documentations. A single-center prospective observational analysis was performed evaluating CAM-ICU documentations from October 27, 2014, to December 26, 2014. Patients admitted to the medical and surgical ICU were included and excluded if admitted to the ICU for less than 24 h. CAM-ICU assessments were performed per institutional guidelines using CAM-ICU scoring as validated in literature. CAM-ICU patient documentations were recorded as positive, negative, UTA, or not assessed. Patients with an appropriate UTA documentation were deeply sedated, non-English speaking, or not medically able to participate in the assessment. The major endpoint assessed rates of inappropriate UTA CAM-ICU documentations. Minor endpoints evaluated adherence to CAM-ICU documentations and use of pharmacologic agents for symptoms of delirium. Sixty-one patients were identified with 45 (74 %) medical, 16 (26 %) surgical, of which 27 (44.3 %) were mechanically ventilated. There were 116 UTA documentations with 35 (30.2 %) identified as inappropriate. Of the 906 identified CAM-ICU documentation opportunities, adherence was 439 (48.5 %). Overall, 18 (29.5 %) of the 61 patients were administered pharmacologic agents for delirium management and 5 (27.7 %) had a positive CAM-ICU documented within 24 h. Rates of inappropriate UTA CAM-ICU documentations may be significantly higher than reported in literature. Additional research is needed to identify an acceptable rate of inappropriate UTA CAM-ICU assessments and its clinical impact on delirium management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 States | 4 | 40% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 19% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,242,940
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#248
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,273
of 387,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 387,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.