↓ Skip to main content

A critical assessment of monitoring practices, patient deterioration, and alarm fatigue on inpatient wards: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Safety in Surgery, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 232)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
A critical assessment of monitoring practices, patient deterioration, and alarm fatigue on inpatient wards: a review
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1754-9493-8-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

J Paul Curry, Carla R Jungquist

Abstract

Approximately forty million surgeries take place annually in the United States, many of them requiring overnight or lengthier post operative stays in the over five thousand hospitals that comprise our acute healthcare system. Leading up to this Century, it was common for most hospitalized patients and their families to believe that being surrounded by well-trained nurses and physicians assured their safety. That bubble burst with the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report: To Err Is Human, followed closely by its 2001 report: Crossing the Quality Chasm. This review article discusses unexpected, potentially lethal respiratory complications known for being difficult to detect early, especially in postoperative patients recovering on hospital general care floors (GCF). We have designed our physiologic explanations and simplified cognitive framework to give our front line clinical nurses a thorough, easy-to-recall understanding of just how these events evolve, and how to detect them early when most amenable to treatment. Our review will also discuss currently available practices in general care floor monitoring that can both improve patient safety and significantly reduce monitor associated alarm fatigue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 138 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 19%
Other 19 13%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Engineering 12 8%
Unspecified 8 6%
Computer Science 7 5%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 30 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 08 May 2015.
All research outputs
#1,858,492
of 23,555,482 outputs
Outputs from Patient Safety in Surgery
#29
of 232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,232
of 229,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Safety in Surgery
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,555,482 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 229,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.