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 |
Implementation of checklists in health care; learning from high-reliability organisations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1757-7241-19-53 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Øyvind Thomassen, Ansgar Espeland, Eirik Søfteland, Hans Morten Lossius, Jon Kenneth Heltne, Guttorm Brattebø |
| Abstract |
Checklists are common in some medical fields, including surgery, intensive care and emergency medicine. They can be an effective tool to improve care processes and reduce mortality and morbidity. Despite the seemingly rapid acceptance and dissemination of the checklist, there are few studies describing the actual process of developing and implementing such tools in health care. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences from checklist development and implementation in a group of non-medical, high reliability organisations (HROs). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 3 | 19% |
| United States | 2 | 13% |
| South Africa | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 227 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 44 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 9% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 54 | 23% |
| Unknown | 49 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 17 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 4% |
| Engineering | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 11% |
| Unknown | 60 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 11 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,568,683
of 24,736,359 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#125
of 1,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,092
of 136,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,736,359 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 136,879 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 94% 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 5 of them.