↓ Skip to main content

Transfers from intensive care unit to hospital ward: a multicentre textual analysis of physician progress notes

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
45 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Transfers from intensive care unit to hospital ward: a multicentre textual analysis of physician progress notes
Published in
Critical Care, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-1941-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyla N. Brown, Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Hasham Kamran, Sean M. Bagshaw, Rob A. Fowler, Peter M. Dodek, Alexis F. Turgeon, Alan J. Forster, Francois Lamontagne, Andrea Soo, Henry T. Stelfox

Abstract

Little is known about documentation during transitions of patient care between clinical specialties. Therefore, we examined the focus, structure and purpose of physician progress notes for patients transferred from the intensive care unit (ICU) to hospital ward to identify opportunities to improve communication breaks. This was a prospective cohort study in ten Canadian hospitals. We analyzed physician progress notes for consenting adult patients transferred from a medical-surgical ICU to hospital ward. The number, length, legibility and content of notes was counted and compared across care settings using mixed-effects linear regression models accounting for clustering within hospitals. Qualitative content analyses were conducted on a stratified random sample of 32 patients. A total of 447 patient medical records that included 7052 progress notes (mean 2.1 notes/patient/day 95% CI 1.9-2.3) were analyzed. Notes written by the ICU team were significantly longer than notes written by the ward team (mean lines of text 21 vs. 15, p < 0.001). There was a discrepancy between documentation of patient issues in the last ICU and first ward notes; mean agreement of patient issues was 42% [95% CI 31-53%]. Qualitative analyses identified eight themes related to focus (central point - e.g., problem list), structure (organization, - e.g., note-taking style), and purpose (intention - e.g., documentation of patient course) of the notes that varied across clinical specialties and physician seniority. Important gaps and variations in written documentation during transitions of patient care between ICU and hospital ward physicians are common, and include discrepancies in documentation of patient information.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 03 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,253,011
of 22,489,892 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,117
of 5,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,047
of 405,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,489,892 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 405,779 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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.