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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Timeliness of Operating Room Case Planning and Time Utilization: Influence of First and To-Follow Cases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Medicine, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmed.2017.00049 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudius Balzer, David Raackow, Klaus Hahnenkamp, Steffen Flessa, Konrad Meissner |
| Abstract |
Resource and cost constraints in hospitals demand thorough planning of operating room schedules. Ideally, exact start times and durations are known in advance for each case. However, aside from the first case's start, most factors are hard to predict. While the role of the start of the first case for optimal room utilization has been shown before, data for to-follow cases are lacking. The present study therefore aimed to analyze all elective surgery cases of a university hospital within 1 year in search of visible patterns. A total of 14,014 cases scheduled on 254 regular working days at a university hospital between September 2015 and August 2016 underwent screening. After eliminating 112 emergencies during regular working hours, 13,547 elective daytime cases were analyzed, out of which 4,346 ranked first, 3,723 second, and 5,478 third or higher in the daily schedule. Also, 36% of cases changed start times from the day before to 7:00 a.m., with half of these (52%) resulting in a delay of more than 15 min. After 7:00 a.m., 87% of cases started more than 10 min off schedule, with 26% being early and 74% late. Timeliness was 15 ± 72 min (mean ± SD) for first, 21 ± 84 min for second, and 25 ± 93 min for all to-follow cases, compared to preoperative day planning, and 21 ± 45, 23 ± 61, and 19 ± 74 min compared to 7:00 a.m. status. Start time deviations were also related to procedure duration, with cases of 61-90 min duration being most reliable (deviation 9.8 ± 67 min compared to 7:00 a.m.), regardless of order. In consequence, cases following after 61-90 min long cases had the shortest deviations of incision time from schedule (16 ± 66 min). Taken together, start times for elective surgery cases deviate substantially from schedule, with first and second cases falling into the highest mean deviation category. Second cases had the largest deviations from scheduled times compared to first and all to-follow cases. While planned vs. actual start times differ among specialties, cases of 61-90 min duration had the most reliable start times, with neither shorter nor longer cases seeming to improve timeliness of start times. |
X Demographics
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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 21% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 45% |
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 27 April 2017.
All research outputs
#18,546,002
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,968
of 5,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,300
of 309,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#30
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 309,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.