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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of the introduction of an endotracheal tube attachment device on the incidence and severity of oral pressure injuries in the intensive care unit: a retrospective observational study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Nursing, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12912-018-0274-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jaye Hampson, Cameron Green, Joanne Stewart, Lauren Armitstead, Gemma Degan, Andrea Aubrey, Eldho Paul, Ravindranath Tiruvoipati |
| Abstract |
Endotracheal tube (ETT) fasteners such as the AnchorFast™ claim to assist with the prevention of oral pressure injuries in intubated patients, however evidence to support their clinical efficacy is limited. This retrospective observational study aimed to investigate the impact of the introduction of the AnchorFast™ device on the incidence of oral pressure injuries in mechanically ventilated patients. Data was collected from patient case notes and clinical incident reports for October 2010 to June 2013 (pre-AnchorFast)and July 2013 to March 2016 (post-AnchorFast). Incidence and location of oral pressure injuries associated with securing device, and compliance with institutional policies related to reducing oral pressure injuries were recorded. Incidence of oral pressure injuries increased from 1.53/100 intubated patients in the pre-AnchorFast period to 3.73/100 intubated patients in the post-AnchorFast period (IRR = 2.43, 95%CI = 1.35-4.38;p = 0.003). Across both study periods, patients with an ETT secured using AnchorFast™ had significantly increased risk of oral pressure injuries (IRR = 2.03, 95%CI = 1.17-3.51;p = 0.02). There was also a significant difference in location of pressure injuries sustained with ETTs secured using cloth tapes (53.6% in corner of the mouth) vs. AnchorFast™ (75% on the lips) (p = 0.008). Among patients with oral pressure injuries, compliance with institutional policies relating to the prevention of pressure injuries was significantly greater after the introduction of the AnchorFast™ (9.1% vs 64.5%,p = 0.004). The incidence of oral pressure injuries increased significantly following the introduction of the AnchorFast™ device. Further research is required to establish the reasons for this observed increase to and identify ways to reduce the risk of pressure injuries with ETT securement devices. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 17% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 5% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 31 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,991,034
of 24,036,420 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#86
of 829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,838
of 446,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,036,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 829 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 446,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
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. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.