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 |
Recognizing acute delirium as part of your routine [RADAR]: a validation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Nursing, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12912-015-0070-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Philippe Voyer, Nathalie Champoux, Johanne Desrosiers, Philippe Landreville, Jane McCusker, Johanne Monette, Maryse Savoie, Sylvie Richard, Pierre-Hugues Carmichael |
| Abstract |
Although detection of delirium using the current tools is excellent in research settings, in routine clinical practice, this is not the case. Together with nursing staff, we developed a screening tool (RADAR) to address certain limitations of existing tools, notably administration time, ease-of-use and generalizability. The purpose of this study was not only to evaluate the validity and reliability of RADAR but also to gauge its acceptability among the nursing staff in two different clinical settings. This was a validation study conducted on three units of an acute care hospital (medical, cardiology and coronary care) and five units of a long-term care facility. A total of 142 patients and 51 residents aged 65 and over, with or without dementia, participated in the study and 139 nurses were recruited and trained to use the RADAR tool. Data on each patient/resident was collected over a 12-hour period. The nursing staff and researchers administered RADAR during the scheduled distribution of medication. Researchers used the Confusion Assessment Method to determine the presence of delirium symptoms. Delirium itself was defined as meeting the criteria for DMS-IV-TR delirium. Inter-rater reliability, convergent, and concurrent validity of RADAR were assessed. At study end, 103 (74%) members of the nursing staff completed the RADAR feasibility and acceptability questionnaire. Percentages of agreement between RADAR items that bedside nurses administered and those research assistants administered varied from 82% to 98%. When compared with DSM-IV-TR criterion-defined delirium, RADAR had a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 67%. Participating nursing staff took about seven seconds on average, to complete the tool and it was very well received (≥98%) overall. The RADAR tool proved to be efficient, reliable, sensitive and very well accepted by nursing staff. Consequently, it becomes an appropriate new option for delirium screening among older adults, with or without cognitive impairment, in both hospitals and nursing homes. Further projects are currently underway to validate the RADAR among middle-aged adults, as well as in newer clinical settings; home care, emergency department, medical intensive care unit, and palliative care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 16 | 33% |
| Canada | 5 | 10% |
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Australia | 3 | 6% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 51% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 29% |
| Scientists | 8 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 180 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Researcher | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 22% |
| Unknown | 41 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 50 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 39 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 14 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,040,854
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#15
of 983 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,860
of 281,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 983 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 281,301 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.