↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of the Efficacy Safety Score (ESS), a novel tool for postoperative patient management

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 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 and validation of the Efficacy Safety Score (ESS), a novel tool for postoperative patient management
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0344-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erlend Skraastad, Johan Ræder, Vegard Dahl, Lars J. Bjertnæs, Vladimir Kuklin

Abstract

Several reports have shown that postoperative monitoring of general safety and quality issues, including pain treatment, after discharge from recovery is often non-systematic and inadequate. We suggest a new score with assessment of key recovery parameters, as a supportive tool for postoperative care and a call-out algorithm for need of extra help. The aim of this investigation was to validate the score. After suggesting a prototype score from a pilot study in 182 postoperative patients, we performed a Delphi process by using international experts to create consensus on the final score contents and called the revised tool the Efficacy Safety Score (ESS). Then, we performed a prospective observational study with the ESS throughout the first 24 h postoperatively in 207 surgical in-patients. We compared ESS with Modified Early Warning Systems (MEWS), and postoperative journal information. We subsequently validated ESS by addressing recognized quality criteria for measurement of health status questionnaires. A call-out value of ESS ≥10 correlated with MEWS > 0 values and journal information about postoperative concerns with a sensitivity of 94% and 92%, respectively. All serious safety issues were identified with the ESS ≥ 10, and a higher number of quality issues were identified than with routine care or MEWS. We obtained positive ratings for six out of seven tested criteria of questionnaire quality; one criterion had an indeterminate rating. ESS fulfils suggested criteria for score quality validation and reflects the patient's postoperative status adequately and with high sensitivity. Further clinical trials are warranted to evaluate the usefulness of ESS as a simple tool for assessment of the postoperative safety and quality of patients.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Other 19 28%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 21%
Computer Science 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,311,299
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#405
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,178
of 308,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#8
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 71% 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 308,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.