↓ Skip to main content

Factors associated with the use of cognitive aids in operating room crises: a cross-sectional study of US hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Factors associated with the use of cognitive aids in operating room crises: a cross-sectional study of US hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0739-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shehnaz Alidina, Sara N. Goldhaber-Fiebert, Alexander A. Hannenberg, David L. Hepner, Sara J. Singer, Bridget A. Neville, James R. Sachetta, Stuart R. Lipsitz, William R. Berry

Abstract

Operating room (OR) crises are high-acuity events requiring rapid, coordinated management. Medical judgment and decision-making can be compromised in stressful situations, and clinicians may not experience a crisis for many years. A cognitive aid (e.g., checklist) for the most common types of crises in the OR may improve management during unexpected and rare events. While implementation strategies for innovations such as cognitive aids for routine use are becoming better understood, cognitive aids that are rarely used are not yet well understood. We examined organizational context and implementation process factors influencing the use of cognitive aids for OR crises. We conducted a cross-sectional study using a Web-based survey of individuals who had downloaded OR cognitive aids from the websites of Ariadne Labs or Stanford University between January 2013 and January 2016. In this paper, we report on the experience of 368 respondents from US hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers. We analyzed the relationship of more successful implementation (measured as reported regular cognitive aid use during applicable clinical events) with organizational context and with participation in a multi-step implementation process. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify significant predictors of reported, regular OR cognitive aid use during OR crises. In the multivariable logistic regression, small facility size was associated with a fourfold increase in the odds of a facility reporting more successful implementation (p = 0.0092). Completing more implementation steps was also significantly associated with more successful implementation; each implementation step completed was associated with just over 50% higher odds of more successful implementation (p ≤ 0.0001). More successful implementation was associated with leadership support (p < 0.0001) and dedicated time to train staff (p = 0.0189). Less successful implementation was associated with resistance among clinical providers to using cognitive aids (p < 0.0001), absence of an implementation champion (p = 0.0126), and unsatisfactory content or design of the cognitive aid (p = 0.0112). Successful implementation of cognitive aids in ORs was associated with a supportive organizational context and following a multi-step implementation process. Building strong organizational support and following a well-planned multi-step implementation process will likely increase the use of OR cognitive aids during intraoperative crises, which may improve patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 28 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Engineering 6 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 34 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 15 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,636,840
of 24,099,692 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#568
of 1,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,897
of 334,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#20
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,099,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 334,064 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.