↓ Skip to main content

Simulation as a toolkit—understanding the perils of blood transfusion in a complex health care environment

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Simulation, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Simulation as a toolkit—understanding the perils of blood transfusion in a complex health care environment
Published in
Advances in Simulation, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41077-016-0032-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas M. Campbell, Laya Poost-Foroosh, Katerina Pavenski, Maya Contreras, Fahad Alam, Jason Lee, Patricia Houston

Abstract

Administration of blood is a complex process requiring vigilance and effective teamwork. Despite strict policies and training on blood administration, errors still occur and can lead to mistransfusion with adverse patient outcomes. We used an in situ simulated scenario within an operating room (OR) to identify weaknesses in the current process and hazards that could contribute to mistransfusion. A process checklist of critical steps of safe transfusion was developed based on a large academic centre's internal hospital policy and practice. Ten standardized operating room scenarios were conducted involving management of postoperative bleeding. Scenarios lasted 20 min or until blood transfusion was started. Debriefing followed immediately. Video recordings were reviewed, scored, and evaluated for team performance. Latent safety threats were identified. Focus groups further helped to identify rationale for decisions made. Participants completed questionnaires to evaluate the exercise. Forty-three experienced OR professionals participated. Of the 19 steps identified as essential for the safe administration of blood components, the median number of steps correctly completed per team was 11. The largest number of errors occurred when different team members interacted and during the immediate pre-transfusion check. We report that this type of learning immediately increased participants' self-reported ability to perform in a team (90%) and to improve clinical care (88%). In situ simulation is valuable in identifying common susceptibilities in blood administration error in a complex healthcare organization. Administrators and clinicians may wish to use simulation as an opportunity for system improvement in the delivery of quality care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Other 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Psychology 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,161,041
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#193
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,910
of 419,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 419,646 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.