↓ Skip to main content

Overview of medical errors and adverse events

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 Mendeley
Title
Overview of medical errors and adverse events
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-2-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maité Garrouste-Orgeas, François Philippart, Cédric Bruel, Adeline Max, Nicolas Lau, B Misset

Abstract

Safety is a global concept that encompasses efficiency, security of care, reactivity of caregivers, and satisfaction of patients and relatives. Patient safety has emerged as a major target for healthcare improvement. Quality assurance is a complex task, and patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are more likely than other hospitalized patients to experience medical errors, due to the complexity of their conditions, need for urgent interventions, and considerable workload fluctuation. Medication errors are the most common medical errors and can induce adverse events. Two approaches are available for evaluating and improving quality-of-care: the room-for-improvement model, in which problems are identified, plans are made to resolve them, and the results of the plans are measured; and the monitoring model, in which quality indicators are defined as relevant to potential problems and then monitored periodically. Indicators that reflect structures, processes, or outcomes have been developed by medical societies. Surveillance of these indicators is organized at the hospital or national level. Using a combination of methods improves the results. Errors are caused by combinations of human factors and system factors, and information must be obtained on how people make errors in the ICU environment. Preventive strategies are more likely to be effective if they rely on a system-based approach, in which organizational flaws are remedied, rather than a human-based approach of encouraging people not to make errors. The development of a safety culture in the ICU is crucial to effective prevention and should occur before the evaluation of safety programs, which are more likely to be effective when they involve bundles of measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 259 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 9%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Researcher 20 8%
Other 60 23%
Unknown 34 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 6%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 5%
Other 51 19%
Unknown 48 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 01 November 2020.
All research outputs
#756,784
of 17,585,248 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#67
of 808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,387
of 131,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,585,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 131,013 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them