| Title |
Multidisciplinary approach to the management of pulmonary embolism patients: the pulmonary embolism response team (PERT)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jmdh.s151196 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher W Root, David M Dudzinski, Bishoy Zakhary, Oren A Friedman, Akhilesh K Sista, James M Horowitz |
| Abstract |
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal disease with a broad range of treatment options that spans multiple specialties. The rapid evolution and expansion of novel therapies to treat PE make it a disease process that is well suited to a multidisciplinary approach. In order to facilitate a rapid, robust response to the diagnosis of PE, some hospitals have established multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs). The PERT model is based on existing multidisciplinary teams such as heart teams and rapid response teams. A PERT is composed of clinicians from the range of specialties involved in the treatment of PE, including pulmonology critical care, interventional radiology, cardiology, and cardiothoracic surgery among others. A PERT is a 24/7 consult service that is able to provide expert advice on the initial management of PE patients and convene in real time to develop a consensus treatment plan specifically tailored to the needs of a particular patient and consistent with the capabilities of the institution. In this review, we discuss the rationale for establishing a PERT and its potential benefits. We discuss considerations in forming a PERT and present case studies of several PERTs currently in operation at different institutions. We also discuss potential difficulties in forming a PERT and review evidence that has been generated by some of the PERTs that have been in operation the longest. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 71% |
| South Africa | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 29% |
| Scientists | 3 | 21% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 21 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,955,227
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#105
of 834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,720
of 330,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 330,201 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.