↓ Skip to main content

Establishing research priorities for patient safety in emergency medicine: a multidisciplinary consensus panel

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Establishing research priorities for patient safety in emergency medicine: a multidisciplinary consensus panel
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12245-014-0049-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy C Plint, Antonia S Stang, Lisa A Calder, for the Priorities in Patient Safety Research in Emergency Medicine Consensus Panel

Abstract

Patient safety in the context of emergency medicine is a relatively new field of study. To date, no broad research agenda for patient safety in emergency medicine has been established. The objective of this study was to establish patient safety-related research priorities for emergency medicine. These priorities would provide a foundation for high-quality research, important direction to both researchers and health-care funders, and an essential step in improving health-care safety and patient outcomes in the high-risk emergency department (ED) setting. A four-phase consensus procedure with a multidisciplinary expert panel was organized to identify, assess, and agree on research priorities for patient safety in emergency medicine. The 19-member panel consisted of clinicians, administrators, and researchers from adult and pediatric emergency medicine, patient safety, pharmacy, and mental health; as well as representatives from patient safety organizations. In phase 1, we developed an initial list of potential research priorities by electronically surveying a purposeful and convenience sample of patient safety experts, ED clinicians, administrators, and researchers from across North America using contact lists from multiple organizations. We used simple content analysis to remove duplication and categorize the research priorities identified by survey respondents. Our expert panel reached consensus on a final list of research priorities through an in-person meeting (phase 3) and two rounds of a modified Delphi process (phases 2 and 4). After phases 1 and 2, 66 unique research priorities were identified for expert panel review. At the end of phase 4, consensus was reached for 15 research priorities. These priorities represent four themes: (1) methods to identify patient safety issues (five priorities), (2) understanding human and environmental factors related to patient safety (four priorities), (3) the patient perspective (one priority), and (4) interventions for improving patient safety (five priorities). This study established expert, consensus-based research priorities for patient safety in emergency medicine. This framework could be used by researchers and health-care funders and represents an essential guiding step towards enhancing quality of care and patient safety in the ED.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 12%
Librarian 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 16 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 16 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,683,430
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#384
of 607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,723
of 354,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 607 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 354,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.