↓ Skip to main content

The effect of an electronic cognitive aid on the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction during caesarean section: a prospective randomised simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
The effect of an electronic cognitive aid on the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction during caesarean section: a prospective randomised simulation study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0340-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael St.Pierre, Bjoern Luetcke, Dieter Strembski, Christopher Schmitt, Georg Breuer

Abstract

Cognitive aids have come to be viewed as promising tools in the management of perioperative critical events. The majority of published simulation studies have focussed on perioperative crises that are characterised by time pressure, rare occurrence, or complex management steps (e.g., cardiac arrest emergencies, management of the difficult airway). At present, there is limited information on the usefulness of cognitive aids in critical situations with moderate time pressure and complexity. Intraoperative myocardial infarction may be an emergency to which these limitations apply. Anaesthetic teams were allocated to control (no cognitive aid; n = 10) or intervention (cognitive aid provided; n = 10) groups. The primary aim of this study was to compare cognitive aid versus memory for intraoperative ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) management in a simulation of caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia. We identified nine evidence-based metrics of essential care from current guidelines and subdivided them into mandatory (high level of evidence; no interference with surgery) and optional (lower class of recommendation; possible impact on surgery) tasks. Six clinically relevant tasks were added by consensus. Implementation of these steps was measured by scoring task items in a binary fashion (yes/no). The interval between the diagnosis of STEMI and the first contact with the cardiac catheterisation lab was measured. To determine whether or not the cognitive aid had prompted an action, participants from the cognitive aid group were interviewed during debriefing on every single treatment step. At the end of the simulation, session participants were asked to complete a survey. The presence of the cognitive aid did not shorten the time interval until the cardiac catheterisation lab was contacted. The availability of the cognitive aid improved task performance in the tasks identified from the guidelines (93% vs. 69%; p < 0.001) as well as overall task performance (87.5% vs. 59%; p < 0.001). The observed difference in performance can be attributed to the use of the cognitive aid, as performance from memory alone would have been comparable across both groups. Trainees appeared to derive greater benefit from the cognitive aid than did consultants and nurses. The management of intraoperative ST-elevation myocardial infarction can be improved if teams use a cognitive aid. Trainees appeared to derive greater benefit from the cognitive aid than did consultants and nurses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Other 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 30 25%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Engineering 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 39 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,400,836
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#671
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,974
of 309,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#15
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,504 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 309,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.