↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Reducing medication errors in critical care: a multimodal approach

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#47 of 179)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Reducing medication errors in critical care: a multimodal approach
Published in
Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications, September 2014
DOI 10.2147/cpaa.s48530
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel M Kruer, Andrew S Jarrell, Asad Latif

Abstract

The Institute of Medicine has reported that medication errors are the single most common type of error in health care, representing 19% of all adverse events, while accounting for over 7,000 deaths annually. The frequency of medication errors in adult intensive care units can be as high as 947 per 1,000 patient-days, with a median of 105.9 per 1,000 patient-days. The formulation of drugs is a potential contributor to medication errors. Challenges related to drug formulation are specific to the various routes of medication administration, though errors associated with medication appearance and labeling occur among all drug formulations and routes of administration. Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires a multimodal approach. Changes in technology, training, systems, and safety culture are all strategies to potentially reduce medication errors related to drug formulation in the intensive care unit.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 22%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 30 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 14%
Computer Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 31 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,602,453
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications
#47
of 179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,201
of 248,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 248,673 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.