↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective record review in proactive patient safety work – identification of no-harm incidents

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Retrospective record review in proactive patient safety work – identification of no-harm incidents
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-282
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina Schildmeijer, Maria Unbeck, Olav Muren, Joep Perk, Karin Pukk Härenstam, Lena Nilsson

Abstract

In contrast to other safety critical industries, well-developed systems to monitor safety within the healthcare system remain limited. Retrospective record review is one way of identifying adverse events in healthcare. In proactive patient safety work, retrospective record review could be used to identify, analyze and gain information and knowledge about no-harm incidents and deficiencies in healthcare processes. The aim of the study was to evaluate retrospective record review for the detection and characterization of no-harm incidents, and compare findings with conventional incident-reporting systems.

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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Uruguay 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 28%
Student > Postgraduate 8 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 18%
Engineering 8 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 12 20%
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 25 July 2013.
All research outputs
#15,274,524
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,537
of 7,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,329
of 197,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#76
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 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 7,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 197,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.