↓ Skip to main content

Situation awareness errors in anesthesia and critical care in 200 cases of a critical incident reporting system

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 1,699)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
59 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Situation awareness errors in anesthesia and critical care in 200 cases of a critical incident reporting system
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-016-0172-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian M. Schulz, Veronika Krautheim, Annika Hackemann, Matthias Kreuzer, Eberhard F. Kochs, Klaus J. Wagner

Abstract

A loss of adequate Situation Awareness (SA) may play a major role in the genesis of critical incidents in anesthesia and critical care. This observational study aimed to determine the frequency of SA errors in cases of a critical incident reporting system (CIRS). Two experts independently reviewed 200 cases from the German Anesthesia CIRS. For inclusion, reports had to be related to anesthesia or critical care for an individual patient and take place in an in-hospital setting. Based on the SA framework, the frequency of SA errors was determined. Representative cases were analyzed qualitatively to illustrate the role of SA for decision-making. SA errors were identified in 81.5 %. Predominantly, errors occurred on the levels of perception (38.0 %) and comprehension (31.5 %). Errors on the level of projection played a minor role (12.0 %). The qualitative analysis of selected cases illustrates the crucial role of SA for decision-making and performance. SA errors are very frequent in critical incidents reported in a CIRS. The SA taxonomy was suitable to provide mechanistic insights into the central role of SA for decision-making and thus, patient safety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 17%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Other 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 26 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 27%
Engineering 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Computer Science 7 6%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 31 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 416. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#69,874
of 25,362,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#1
of 1,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,131
of 405,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,699 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 405,517 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.