↓ Skip to main content

Time to endoscopic intervention in patients with upper gastrointestinal patients can be improved with pathway provision

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Time to endoscopic intervention in patients with upper gastrointestinal patients can be improved with pathway provision
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3335-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

R Singer, P Campbell, C Fernandes, P Statham, D Hochhauser, J Bridgewater

Abstract

Patients with upper gastrointestinal malignancy often require admission to hospital with dysphagia or jaundice requiring therapeutic endoscopy. Endoscopic intervention is often effective permitting rapid discharge. An efficient service would permit rapid discharge for patients who are often at the end of life. We noted that a majority of patients in hospital under the gastroenterological oncology were admitted with symptoms requiring therapeutic endoscopy. We conducted an audit cycle of the inpatient days before and after pathway implementation. A wait of 1 day was set as acceptable for patients with bleeding as defined by NICE guidance and we set an arbitrary standard of 2 days for patients without bleeding but requiring therapeutic endoscopy. Between the audit cycles, a pathway was built to accommodate these patients. Inpatient waits improved from a median of 3 days to 1 day. There was no difference in outcome between those presenting with bleeding and other symptoms or any difference in patients requiring different procedures. Waiting times for endoscopy can be improved with the introduction of a targeted pathway of cancer patients. Further issues including cost, quality of life and nutrition require further intervention.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Other 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 3 25%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Psychology 2 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
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 29 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,429,992
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#6,526
of 8,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,989
of 313,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#110
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,351 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 313,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.