↓ Skip to main content

Transition in care from paramedics to emergency department nurses: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Transition in care from paramedics to emergency department nurses: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0651-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gudrun Reay, Jill M. Norris, K. Alix Hayden, Joanna Abraham, Katherine Yokom, Lorelli Nowell, Gerald C. Lazarenko, Eddy S. Lang

Abstract

Effective and efficient transitions in care between emergency medical services (EMS) practitioners and emergency department (ED) nurses is vital as poor clinical transitions in care may place patients at increased risk for adverse events such as delay in treatment for time sensitive conditions (e.g., myocardial infarction) or worsening of status (e.g., sepsis). Such transitions in care are complex and prone to communication errors primarily caused by misunderstanding related to divergent professional perspectives leading to misunderstandings that are further susceptible to contextual factors and divergent professional lenses. In this systematic review, we aim to examine (1) factors that mitigate or improve transitions in care specifically from EMS practitioners to ED nurses, and (2) effectiveness of interventional strategies that lead to improvements in communication and fewer adverse events. We will search electronic databases (DARE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP; Communication Abstracts); gray literature (gray literature databases, organization websites, querying experts in emergency medicine); and reference lists and conduct forward citation searches of included studies. All English-language primary studies will be eligible for inclusion if the study includes (1) EMS practitioners or ED nurses involved in transitions for arriving EMS patients; and (2) an intervention to improve transitions in care or description of factors that influence transitions in care (barriers/facilitators, perceptions, experiences, quality of information exchange). Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts for inclusion and methodological quality. We will use narrative and thematic synthesis to integrate and explore relationships within the data. Should the data permit, a meta-analysis will be conducted. This systematic review will help identify factors that influence communication between EMS and ED nurses during transitions in care, and identify interventional strategies that lead to improved communication and decrease in adverse events. The findings can be used to develop an evidence-informed transitions in care tool that ensures efficient transfer of accurate patient information, continuity of care, enhances patient safety, and avoids duplication of services. This review will also identify gaps in the existing literature to inform future research efforts. PROSPERO CRD42017068844.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 17%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Master 15 9%
Other 10 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 64 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 59 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 13%
Psychology 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 66 38%
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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,367,869
of 25,489,496 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,783
of 2,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,290
of 447,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#45
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,489,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 447,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.