| Title |
Availability and use of hemostatic agents in prehospital trauma patients in Pennsylvania translation from the military to the civilian setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/oaem.s134657 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam Sigal, Anthony Martin, Adrian Ong |
| Abstract |
To understand the translation of one innovation in trauma care from the military to the civilian setting, the adoption of topical hemostatic agents in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) community and in Trauma Centers in Pennsylvania. We utilized an anonymous electronic survey of EMS Agency Administrative Officers and Trauma Center Coordinators. We received responses from 23% (93/402) Advanced Life Support and Air Medical agencies in the State. Of the EMS agencies that responded, 46.6% (61/131) stock hemostatic products, with 55.5% (44/79) carrying QuickClot(®) Combat Gauze(®). Of the agencies that carried hemostatic products, 50% utilized them at least once in the prior 6 months and 59% over the past 12 months. Despite the infrequent number of applications, prehospital providers ranked themselves as somewhat skilled and comfortable both with the application of the products and the indications for their use. Our survey found that 46.6% of the respondents indicated they carry hemostatic products, a much greater number than found on prior surveys of EMS agencies. There is a steady acceptance by EMS of new innovations in trauma care although more work is needed in translating the exact role of hemostatic agents in the civilian setting. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 16% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 24% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 28% |
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 26 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#182
of 231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,263
of 326,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 326,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.