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 |
Trials and tribulations: how we established a major incident database
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13049-017-0351-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. E. J. Hardy, S. Fattah |
| Abstract |
We describe the process of setting up a database of major incident reports and its potential future application. A template for reporting on major incidents was developed using a consensus-based process involving a team of experts in the field. A website was set up as a platform from which to launch the template and as a database of submitted reports. This paper describes the processes involved in setting up a major incident reporting database. It describes how specific difficulties have been overcome and anticipates challenges for the future. We have successfully set up a major incident database, the main purpose of which is to have a repository of standardised major incident reports that can be analysed and compared in order to learn from them. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#13,839,563
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#867
of 1,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,564
of 419,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#24
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 419,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.