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 |
Hands-On Defibrillation Skills of Pediatric Acute Care Providers During a Simulated Ventricular Fibrillation Cardiac Arrest Scenario
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pediatrics, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fped.2018.00107 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Utpal S. Bhalala, Niveditha Balakumar, Maria Zamora, Elumalai Appachi |
| Abstract |
Introduction: Timely defibrillation in ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest (VFCA) is associated with good outcome. While defibrillation skills of pediatric providers have been reported to be poor, the factors related to poor hands-on defibrillation skills of pediatric providers are largely unknown. The aim of our study was to evaluate delay in individual steps of the defibrillation and human and non-human factors associated with poor hands-on defibrillation skills among pediatric acute care providers during a simulated VFCA scenario. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of video evaluation of hands-on defibrillation skills of pediatric providers in a simulated VFCA in our children's hospital. Each provider was asked to use pads followed by paddles to provide 2 J/kg shock to an infant mannequin in VFCA. The hands-on skills were evaluated for struggle with any step of defibrillation, defined a priori as >10 s delay with particular step. The data was analyzed using chi-square test with significant p-value < 0.05. Results: A total of 68 acute care providers were evaluated. Median time to first shock was 97 s (IQR: 60-122.5 s) and did not correlate with provider factors, except previous experience with the defibrillator used in study. The number of providers who struggled (>10 s delay) with each of connecting the pads/paddles to the device, using pads/paddles on the mannequin and using buttons on the machine was 34 (50%), 26 (38%), and 31 (46%), respectively. Conclusions: The defibrillation skills of providers in a tertiary care children's hospital are poor. Both human and machine-related factors are associated with delay in defibrillation. Prior use of the study defibrillator is associated with a significantly shorter time-to-first shock as compared to prior use of any other defibrillator or no prior use of any defibrillator. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 18% |
| Librarian | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,947,156
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#2,970
of 6,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,981
of 326,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#80
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 326,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.