↓ Skip to main content

Unexpected death within 72 hours of emergency department visit: were those deaths preventable?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Unexpected death within 72 hours of emergency department visit: were those deaths preventable?
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0877-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hélène Goulet, Victor Guerand, Benjamin Bloom, Patricia Martel, Philippe Aegerter, Enrique Casalino, Bruno Riou, Yonathan Freund

Abstract

We aimed to determine the rate of preventable death in patients that died early and unexpectedly following hospital admission from the Emergency Department (ED). We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in four centers from the Paris metropolitan area. Inclusion criteria were medical patients that died in hospital within 72 hours of ED attendance and were not admitted to the intensive care unit (unexpected death). Exclusion criteria were limitations of care determined by treating physicians. The existence of a limitation of care decision was adjudicated by two independent chart abstractors. Preventable death was defined as death occurring as a result of medical error. For each selected patient with unexpected death, charts were examined for medical errors and rated on a 1 to 5 preventability scale (from very unlikely to very likely) the preventability of the death. The primary endpoint was the likely preventable death, rated as 4 or 5 on the preventability scale. We retrieved 555 charts; 47 unexpected deaths were analysed; 24 (51%) were considered as preventable. There was a median number of medical errors of two. The most common process breakdowns were incorrect choice of treatment (47% of patients) and failure to order appropriate diagnostic tests (38% of patients). The most common medical error was a severe delay or absence of recommended treatment for severe sepsis, which occurred in ten (42%) patients. In our sample, more than half of unexpected deaths are related to a medical error, and could have been prevented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,671,602
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,812
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,630
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#228
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 395,421 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 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 50% of its contemporaries.