↓ Skip to main content

Reducing errors in health care: cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary team training in obstetric emergencies (TOSTI study); a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 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
Reducing errors in health care: cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary team training in obstetric emergencies (TOSTI study); a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, October 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2393-10-59
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joost van de Ven, Saskia Houterman, Rob AJQ Steinweg, Albert JJA Scherpbier, Willy Wijers, Ben William J Mol, S Guid Oei, the TOSTI-trial group

Abstract

There are many avoidable deaths in hospitals because the care team is not well attuned. Training in emergency situations is generally followed on an individual basis. In practice, however, hospital patients are treated by a team composed of various disciplines. To prevent communication errors, it is important to focus the training on the team as a whole, rather than on the individual. Team training appears to be important in contributing toward preventing these errors. Obstetrics lends itself to multidisciplinary team training. It is a field in which nurses, midwives, obstetricians and paediatricians work together and where decisions must be made and actions must be carried out under extreme time pressure.It is attractive to belief that multidisciplinary team training will reduce the number of errors in obstetrics. The other side of the medal is that many hospitals are buying expensive patient simulators without proper evaluation of the training method. In the Netherlands many hospitals have 1,000 or less annual deliveries. In our small country it might therefore be more cost-effective to train obstetric teams in medical simulation centres with well trained personnel, high fidelity patient simulators, and well defined training programmes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 225 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 16%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 52 23%
Unknown 37 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 16%
Psychology 18 8%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 48 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 October 2012.
All research outputs
#15,242,272
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,972
of 4,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,699
of 99,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 99,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.