↓ Skip to main content

Year in review 2011: Critical Care - Resource Management

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Year in review 2011: Critical Care - Resource Management
Published in
Critical Care, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11821
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pablo Adolfo Perez d'Empaire, Andre Carlos Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Increasing complexity and costs are a fundamental problem in critical care medicine, leading researchers to study opportunities and threats to continue to provide high-quality care in a more efficient health system. Over the past decades, we have learned from industrial methods that quality improvement and resource management can help achieve these results. Last year, Critical Care published a number of papers that highlight key points of critical care resource management. Each of these is grouped into one of three broad categories, based on domains of quality: (a) outcomes, in which we review long-term outcome data with an emphasis on the aging population, strategies to help mitigate the psychological burden of critical care, adverse events, and the appropriate use of resources, such as prolonged mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) beds; (b) processes of care, in which we review variability in the provision of critical care, owing to gender, insurance status, and delays in ICU admission; knowledge translation studies in critical care; goal-directed therapy for postoperative patients and decision-making in the ICU; and (c) structure, in which we review strategies to improve quality through changes in design and the structural limitations to provide care in resource-limited settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 7 16%
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 10 December 2012.
All research outputs
#20,653,708
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,970
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,706
of 286,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#95
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 286,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.