| Title |
Wearing facemasks when performing lumbar punctures: a snapshot of current practice amongst trainee doctors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Local and Regional Anesthesia , November 2010
|
| DOI | 10.2147/lra.s15828 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rajiv Malhotra, Sara Kelly |
| Abstract |
Infective complications of lumbar puncture are not common, but are a significant source of mortality. Causative pathogens have been traced to the oropharynx of the operator, and it is likely that wearing facemasks will minimize the risk of iatrogenic meningitis. The aim of this survey was to assess whether doctors currently wear facemasks when performing lumbar punctures. We constructed an anonymous survey asking about the use of a facemask when performing lumbar punctures. This was distributed to trainee doctors in medical specialties at the West Midlands and Severn Deaneries in the UK. The response rate was 72% (72/100). Responders had performed, on average, a total of 15 (range 3-22) lumbar punctures. Only 27 of the doctors (37.5%) wore a facemask when performing lumbar punctures. CT 1-2 doctors were five times more likely than registrars to wear a facemask (53% versus 10%). Similarly, the likelihood of wearing a facemask decreased with the number of times the procedure had been performed. There are varying practices regarding the use of facemasks for lumbar punctures amongst doctors, with significant differences according to grade and level of experience. Facemasks should be used as part of a "maximal sterile precautions" approach to reduce the risk of infective complications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 33% |
| Other | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
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 03 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Local and Regional Anesthesia
#81
of 114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,490
of 109,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Local and Regional Anesthesia
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 109,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.