↓ Skip to main content

Effects of computer reminders on complications of peripheral venous catheters and nurses’ adherence to a guideline in paediatric care—a cluster randomised study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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
Effects of computer reminders on complications of peripheral venous catheters and nurses’ adherence to a guideline in paediatric care—a cluster randomised study
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0375-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulrika Förberg, Maria Unbeck, Lars Wallin, Eva Johansson, Max Petzold, Britt-Marie Ygge, Anna Ehrenberg

Abstract

Reminder systems in electronic patient records (EPR) have proven to affect both health care professionals' behaviour and patient outcomes. The aim of this cluster randomised trial was to investigate the effects of implementing a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) in paediatric care in the format of reminders integrated in the EPRs, on PVC-related complications, and on registered nurses' (RNs') self-reported adherence to the guideline. An additional aim was to study the relationship between contextual factors and the outcomes of the intervention. The study involved 12 inpatient units at a paediatric university hospital. The reminders included choice of PVC, hygiene, maintenance, and daily inspection of PVC site. Primary outcome was documented signs and symptoms of PVC-related complications at removal, retrieved from the EPR. Secondary outcome was RNs' adherence to a PVC guideline, collected through a questionnaire that also included RNs' perceived work context, as measured by the Alberta Context Tool. Units were allocated into two strata, based on occurrence of PVCs. A blinded simple draw of lots from each stratum randomised six units to the control and intervention groups, respectively. Units were not blinded. The intervention group included 626 PVCs at baseline and 618 post-intervention and the control group 724 PVCs at baseline and 674 post-intervention. RNs included at baseline were 212 (65.4 %) and 208 (71.5 %) post-intervention. No significant effect was found for the computer reminders on PVC-related complications nor on RNs' adherence to the guideline recommendations. The complication rate at baseline and post-intervention was 40.6 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 36.7-44.5) and 41.9 % (95 % CI 38.0-45.8), for the intervention group and 40.3 % (95 % CI 36.8-44.0) and 46.9 % (95 % CI 43.1-50.7) for the control. In general, RNs' self-rated work context varied from moderately low to moderately high, indicating that conditions for a successful implementation to occur were less optimal. The reminders might have benefitted from being accompanied by a tailored intervention that targeted specific barriers, such as the low frequency of recorded reasons for removal, the low adherence to daily inspection of PVC sites, and the lack of regular feedback to the RNs. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44819426.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 154 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 19%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 35 22%
Unknown 46 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 22%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 49 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#5,611,364
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#977
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,186
of 396,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#38
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 396,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.