↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of a novel living-donor kidney transplant preoperative checklist within the electronic medical record: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Safety in Surgery, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Implementation of a novel living-donor kidney transplant preoperative checklist within the electronic medical record: a pilot study
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13037-015-0074-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bradley C. Gill, Hans C. Arora, Hannah R. Kerr, Stuart M. Flechner, Courtney D. Ellis, David A. Goldfarb

Abstract

Checklist utilization in surgery has contributed to improved patient safety and reduced numbers of preventable complications. A living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) preoperative checklist embedded within electronic medical record (EMR) was developed to enhance patient safety and prevent "never" events including: unexpected donor-recipient blood (ABO) incompatibility, positive (XM) cross match, infectious disease transmission, or procurement of an anatomically inappropriate allograft. Review of the initial 2 years of checklist utilization was performed. This safety instrument operates by facilitating critical review and referencing of source documentation to confirm ABO, XM, infectious risk, and organ anatomy compatibility. It was met with high compliance rates and no "never events" have occurred following its inception. The checklist is readily available in the EMR and is accessible by all members of the LDKT recipient healthcare team. Checklist utilization was associated with zero LDKT "never event" occurrences. Surgeons felt the checklist was easy to use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 26%
Other 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 17%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Unknown 7 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 August 2015.
All research outputs
#12,764,204
of 22,506,412 outputs
Outputs from Patient Safety in Surgery
#108
of 230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,945
of 254,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Safety in Surgery
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,506,412 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 254,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them