↓ Skip to main content

Why don't hospital staff activate the rapid response system (RRS)? How frequently is it needed and can the process be improved?

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Why don't hospital staff activate the rapid response system (RRS)? How frequently is it needed and can the process be improved?
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2011
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-6-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stuart D Marshall, Simon Kitto, William Shearer, Stuart J Wilson, Monica A Finnigan, Tamica Sturgess, Tonina Hore, Michael D Buist

Abstract

The rapid response system (RRS) is a process of accessing help for health professionals when a patient under their care becomes severely ill. Recent studies and meta-analyses show a reduction in cardiac arrests by a one-third in hospitals that have introduced a rapid response team, although the effect on overall hospital mortality is less clear. It has been suggested that the difficulty in establishing the benefit of the RRS has been due to implementation difficulties and a reluctance of clinical staff to call for additional help. This assertion is supported by the observation that patients continue to have poor outcomes in our institution despite an established RRS being available. In many of these cases, the patient is often unstable for many hours or days without help being sought. These poor outcomes are often discovered in an ad hoc fashion, and the real numbers of patients who may benefit from the RRS is currently unknown. This study has been designed to answer three key questions to improve the RRS: estimate the scope of the problem in terms of numbers of patients requiring activation of the RRS; determine cognitive and socio-cultural barriers to calling the Rapid Response Team; and design and implement solutions to address the effectiveness of the RRS.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 93 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 10 10%
Lecturer 9 9%
Other 7 7%
Other 28 29%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 28 29%
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 25 September 2014.
All research outputs
#14,147,730
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,481
of 1,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,130
of 94,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#16
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,718 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 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 94,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.