↓ Skip to main content

Development of the major trauma case review tool

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Development of the major trauma case review tool
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13049-017-0353-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate Curtis, Rebecca Mitchell, Amy McCarthy, Kellie Wilson, Connie Van, Belinda Kennedy, Gary Tall, Andrew Holland, Kim Foster, Stuart Dickinson, Henry T. Stelfox

Abstract

As many as half of all patients with major traumatic injuries do not receive the recommended care, with variance in preventable mortality reported across the globe. This variance highlights the need for a comprehensive process for monitoring and reviewing patient care, central to which is a consistent peer-review process that includes trauma system safety and human factors. There is no published, evidence-informed standardised tool that considers these factors for use in adult or paediatric trauma case peer-review. The aim of this research was to develop and validate a trauma case review tool to facilitate clinical review of paediatric trauma patient care in extracting information to facilitate monitoring, inform change and enable loop closure. Development of the trauma case review tool was multi-faceted, beginning with a review of the trauma audit tool literature. Data were extracted from the literature to inform iterative tool development using a consensus approach. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for both the pilot and finalised versions of the tool. The final trauma case review tool contained ten sections, including patient factors (such as pre-existing conditions), presenting problem, a timeline of events, factors contributing to the care delivery problem (including equipment, work environment, staff action, organizational factors), positive aspects of care and the outcome of panel discussion. After refinement, the inter-rater reliability of the human factors and outcome components of the tool improved with an average 86% agreement between raters. This research developed an evidence-informed tool for use in paediatric trauma case review that considers both system safety and human factors to facilitate clinical review of trauma patient care. This tool can be used to identify opportunities for improvement in trauma care and guide quality assurance activities. Validation is required in the adult population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,389,885
of 18,037,154 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#376
of 1,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,762
of 268,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,037,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 268,810 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.