↓ Skip to main content

Hospital resuscitation teams: a review of the risks to the healthcare worker

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Hospital resuscitation teams: a review of the risks to the healthcare worker
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40560-017-0253-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen M. Vindigni, Juan N. Lessing, David J. Carlbom

Abstract

"Code blue" events and related resuscitation efforts involve multidisciplinary bedside teams that implement specialized interventions aimed at patient revival. Activities include performing effective chest compressions, assessing and restoring a perfusing cardiac rhythm, stabilizing the airway, and treating the underlying cause of the arrest. While the existing critical care literature has appropriately focused on the patient, there has been a dearth of information discussing the various stresses to the healthcare team. This review summarizes the available literature regarding occupational risks to medical emergency teams, characterizes these risks, offers preventive strategies to healthcare workers, and highlights further research needs. We performed a literature search of PubMed for English articles of all types (randomized controlled trials, case-control and cohort studies, case reports and series, editorials and commentaries) through September 22, 2016, discussing potential occupational hazards during resuscitation scenarios. Of the 6266 articles reviewed, 73 relevant articles were included. The literature search identified six potential occupational risk categories to members of the resuscitation team-infectious, electrical, musculoskeletal, chemical, irradiative, and psychological. Retrieved articles were reviewed in detail by the authors. Overall, we found there is limited evidence detailing the risks to healthcare workers performing resuscitation. We identify these risks and offer potential solutions. There are clearly numerous opportunities for further study in this field.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 18 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 22%
Unspecified 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 21 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,711,264
of 12,154,160 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#93
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,455
of 273,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,154,160 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 273,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 6 of them.