↓ Skip to main content

Errors in cause-of-death statement on death certificates in intensive care unit of Kathmandu, Nepal

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Errors in cause-of-death statement on death certificates in intensive care unit of Kathmandu, Nepal
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1168-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leison Maharjan, Aarzoo Shah, Khagendra Bahadur Shrestha, Gambhir Shrestha

Abstract

Death certificates (DC) are one of the most important medico-legal documents that physicians work through. DCs are extensively used in health statistics for epidemiological studies, and in health policy planning as a public health resource tool. Cause-of-death (COD) statement, which is vulnerable to various errors, is the vital part of a DC that has the potential to mislead the policy makers and statisticians. Hence, we evaluated and analyzed the errors prevalent in COD statement of DC. A retrospective observational study was conducted at medical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Blue Cross Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal within two years of study period. A total of 204 medical records of the deceased patients were reviewed. Three sub-headings of COD statement of DC- Part I Immediate COD (ICOD), Part I Underlying COD (UCOD), and Part II Other significant conditions (OSC) were extensively evaluated for the major medical errors. The study found errors in 78.4 % of DCs. The highest number of errors was in UCOD (83 %). Most common errors were "Mechanism of Death- terminal event" in ICOD, "More than one competing causes" in UCOD, and "OSC present but not listed" in OSC. The error in DC was found to be statistically significant with the severity of sepsis (p = 0.003), and presence of chronic organ failures (p = 0.034). Age, time of death, source of admission, and duration of ICU stay were not found to be statistically associated with the errors in DC. Prevalence of errors in DC was quite high. Most errors were committed in underlying cause of death, which is the most important part of DC. Complexity of the cases was the key factor that increased the risks of committing errors. Specific education should supersede general educational interventions to minimize the errors considerably in writing DC in complex cases.

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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Other 17 25%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 17 25%
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 07 December 2022.
All research outputs
#13,751,991
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,747
of 7,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,523
of 283,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#61
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 283,840 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.