↓ Skip to main content

Development of a standard operating procedure and checklist for rapid sequence induction in the critically ill

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 1,378)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
76 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 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 a standard operating procedure and checklist for rapid sequence induction in the critically ill
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13049-014-0041-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Brendon Sherren, Stephen Tricklebank, Guy Glover

Abstract

IntroductionRapid sequence induction (RSI) of critically ill patients outside of theatres is associated with a higher risk of hypoxia, cardiovascular collapse and death. In the prehospital and military environments, there is an increasing awareness of the benefits of standardised practice and checklists.MethodsWe conducted a non-systematic review of literature pertaining to key components of RSI preparation and management. A standard operating procedure (SOP) for in-hospital RSI was developed based on this and experience from large teaching hospital anaesthesia and critical care departments.ResultsThe SOP consists of a RSI equipment set-up sheet, pre-RSI checklist and failed airway algorithm. The SOP should improve RSI preparation, crew resource management and first pass intubation success while minimising adverse events.ConclusionBased on the presented literature, we believe the evidence is sufficient to recommend adoption of the core components in the suggested SOP. This standardised approach to RSI in the critically ill may reduce the current high incidence of adverse events and hopefully improve patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 76 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 164 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 18%
Other 19 11%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Other 37 22%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 45 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 04 March 2020.
All research outputs
#693,957
of 25,784,004 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#38
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,723
of 251,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,784,004 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 251,179 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.