↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and predictors of hospital prealerting in acute stroke: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Medicine Journal, February 2016
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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Prevalence and predictors of hospital prealerting in acute stroke: a mixed methods study
Published in
Emergency Medicine Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1136/emermed-2014-204392
Pubmed ID
Authors

J P Sheppard, A Lindenmeyer, R M Mellor, S Greenfield, J Mant, T Quinn, A Rosser, D Sandler, D Sims, M Ward, R J McManus

Abstract

Thrombolysis can significantly reduce the burden of stroke but the time window for safe and effective treatment is short. In patients travelling to hospital via ambulance, the sending of a 'prealert' message can significantly improve the timeliness of treatment. Examine the prevalence of hospital prealerting, the extent to which prealert protocols are followed and what factors influence emergency medical services (EMS) staff's decision to send a prealert. Cohort study of patients admitted to two acute stroke units in West Midlands (UK) hospitals using linked data from hospital and EMS records. A logistic regression model examined the association between prealert eligibility and whether a prealert message was sent. In semistructured interviews, EMS staff were asked about their experiences of patients with suspected stroke. Of the 539 patients eligible for this study, 271 (51%) were recruited. Of these, only 79 (29%) were eligible for prealerting according to criteria set out in local protocols but 143 (53%) were prealerted. Increasing number of Face, Arm, Speech Test symptoms (1 symptom, OR 6.14, 95% CI 2.06 to 18.30, p=0.001; 2 symptoms, OR 31.36, 95% CI 9.91 to 99.24, p<0.001; 3 symptoms, OR 75.84, 95% CI 24.68 to 233.03, p<0.001) and EMS contact within 5 h of symptom onset (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.50 p=0.006) were key predictors of prealerting but eligibility for prealert as a whole was not (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 4.34 p=0.12). In qualitative interviews, EMS staff displayed varying understanding of prealert protocols and described frustration when their interpretation of the prealert criteria was not shared by ED staff. Up to half of the patients presenting with suspected stroke in this study were prealerted by EMS staff, regardless of eligibility, resulting in disagreements with ED staff during handover. Aligning the expectations of EMS and ED staff, perhaps through simplified prealert protocols, could be considered to facilitate more appropriate use of hospital prealerting in acute stroke.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 21%
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 23%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 7 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 30 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,896,604
of 15,833,692 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Journal
#890
of 3,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,162
of 268,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Journal
#22
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,833,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 268,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 58% of its contemporaries.