↓ Skip to main content

Development of quality indicators and data assessment strategies for the prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Development of quality indicators and data assessment strategies for the prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI)
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1200-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anke Bramesfeld, Stephanie Wrede, Klaus Richter, Mareike Steen, Björn Broge, Jürgen Pauletzki, Joachim Szecsenyi

Abstract

The number of catheter related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) could be reduced and the outcome improved if specific standards in the quality of care were maintained. Therefore, the development of quality assurance (QA) procedures was commissioned to be included in the national mandatory QA programme in Germany. Indicators representing quality deficiencies and potential for improvement of quality in relation to prevention and management of central venous catheters (CVC) were developed by 1) evidence-based literature searches and the compiling of an indicator register; 2) a multi-professional expert panel including patient representatives who selected indicators from this register by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method; 3) defining methods for data assessment, risk adjustment and feedback of indicator results to service providers; and 4) consulting all relevant medical societies and other stakeholders with regard to the QA procedures that had been developed. Thirty-two indicators for CRBSI prevention and management were eventually approved by the expert panel. These indicators represent quality of care at predefined points with regard to indication, insertion and care of CVCs, management of sepsis, general hygiene and training of health care personnel. Fourteen indicators represent processes, together with 7 representing structures and 11 outcomes. For assessing these indicators, data was obtained from four sources: claims data from health insurance funds, routine claims data from hospital electronic information systems, case specific longitudinal documentation from service providers and cross-sectional annual assessment of structures. It was possible to develop indicators for mandatory QA procedures on CRBSI that take into account the different perspectives of all stakeholders involved. Despite efforts to use routine data for documentation wherever possible, most indicators required extra documentation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 19%
Engineering 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,294,248
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#6,469
of 7,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,448
of 283,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#157
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 283,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.