↓ Skip to main content

In situ simulation in the management of anaphylaxis in a pediatric emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
In situ simulation in the management of anaphylaxis in a pediatric emergency department
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11739-018-1891-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simona Barni, Francesca Mori, Mattia Giovannini, Marco de Luca, Elio Novembre

Abstract

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening, rapid-onset hypersensitive reaction, usually treated in the emergency department (ED). Failure to recognize anaphylaxis leads to under-treatment with epinephrine and even when correctly diagnosed, epinephrine is not always administered. In addition, often patients who are treated in the ED are not referred for allergy work-up. Simulation is a tool that increases exposure to events in a safe environment, allowing trainers to develop skills without harming patients. The main purpose of our study was to determine whether in situ simulation training increases the frequency of epinephrine use. The secondary aim was to observe whether simulation modifies the number of children investigated over the years before and after the setting up of the simulation training. All patients with anaphylaxis referred to the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) of the Anna Meyer Children's Hospital from 2004 to 2010 [pre-simulation (PRE-s) period], and from 2011 to 2016 [post-simulation (POST-s) period], were retrospectively included in this observational study. Simulation was carried out using a high-fidelity patient simulator mannequin (SimBaby, Laerdal Medical, Inc, Stavanger, NY). The diagnosis of anaphylaxis was based on the EAACI guidelines. The use of epinephrine significantly increased (p < 0.05) between the PRE-s and POST-s time periods: 2.4% versus 10% patients, respectively. During the two time periods, we also observed a significant increase (p = 0.011) in the number of patients who underwent a complete allergy work-up: 36% versus 51% patients, respectively. According to our results, the in situ simulation program improved the correct management of anaphylaxis in terms of prompt use of epinephrine, and it also led to a higher number of patients being referred to the allergy unit for evaluation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 27%
Other 2 18%
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Student > Postgraduate 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 45%
Unspecified 4 36%
Computer Science 1 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%

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 04 April 2019.
All research outputs
#10,809,854
of 13,583,919 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#308
of 445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,917
of 267,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,583,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 445 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 267,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.