↓ Skip to main content

Emergency medical services key performance measurement in Asian cities

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Emergency medical services key performance measurement in Asian cities
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12245-015-0062-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nik Hisamuddin Rahman, Hideharu Tanaka, Sang Do Shin, Yih Yng Ng, Thammapad Piyasuwankul, Chih-Hao Lin, Marcus Eng Hock Ong

Abstract

One of the key principles in the recommended standards is that emergency medical service (EMS) providers should continuously monitor the quality and safety of their services. This requires service providers to implement performance monitoring using appropriate and relevant measures including key performance indicators. In Asia, EMS systems are at different developmental phases and maturity. This will create difficultly in benchmarking or assessing the quality of EMS performance across the region. An attempt was made to compare the EMS performance index based on the structure, process, and outcome analysis. The data was collected from the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcome Study (PAROS) data among few Asian cities, namely, Tokyo, Osaka, Singapore, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Taipei, and Seoul. The parameters of inclusions were broadly divided into structure, process, and outcome measurements. The data was collected by the site investigators from each city and keyed into the electronic web-based data form which is secured strictly by username and passwords. Generally, there seems to be a more uniformity for EMS performance parameters among the more developed EMS systems. The major problem with the EMS agencies in the cities of developing countries like Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur is inadequate or unavailable data pertaining to EMS performance. There is non-uniformity in the EMS performance measurement across the Asian cities. This creates difficulty for EMS performance index comparison and benchmarking. Hopefully, in the future, collaborative efforts such as the PAROS networking group will further enhance the standardization in EMS performance reporting across the region.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 117 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 22%
Other 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 25 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 18%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 34 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 April 2015.
All research outputs
#16,250,472
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#441
of 632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,319
of 270,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 270,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.