↓ Skip to main content

A framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes arising during hospitalization

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
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.
Title
A framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes arising during hospitalization
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1526-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Okoniewska Barbara, Santana Maria Jose, Holroyd-Leduc Jayna, Flemons Ward, O’Beirne Maeve, White Deborah, Ocampo Wrochelle, William A. Ghali, Alan J. Forster

Abstract

The assessment of adverse events from a patient-centered view includes patient-reported adverse outcomes. An adverse outcome refers to any suboptimal outcome experienced by the patient; when adverse outcomes are identified through a patient interview these are called patient-reported adverse outcomes. An adverse event is an adverse outcome that is more likely due to the processes of medical care rather than to the mere progression of disease. In the context of a large-scale study assessing post-hospitalization adverse events, we developed a conceptual framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes (PRAOs). This methodological manuscript describes this conceptual framework. The PRAO framework builds on a validated adverse event ascertainment method including three phases: Phase 1 involves an inquiry to ascertain the occurrence of any patient-reported adverse outcome. It is completed by a structured telephone interview to obtain details - from a patient perspective - on symptoms that developed and/or worsened after hospitalization. Phase 2 involves the classification of PRAOs by physicians not involved in the patient care. Physician-reviewers then rate the PRAOs using well-adopted scales to determine whether the occurrence was the natural progression of the underlying illness or due to medical care. When the PRAO is rated as "due to medical care", it is then classified as an "adverse event". Phase 3 involves the classification of adverse events as preventable or ameliorable. Out of the 1347 patients contacted at 1-month post-discharge, 469 reported AOs and after reviewing 369 cases, 29 were classified as AEs. Observed agreement levels between raters were 87.3, 85.5, and 85.2 % respectively displaying a good agreement (k > 0.60). The framework incorporates PRAOs as a way to identify cases that need to be evaluated for adverse events. Further validation of this framework is warrant with the final aim of implementation at larger scale. The implementation of this framework will enable clinicians, researchers and healthcare institutions to compare outcome rates across providers and over time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Other 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,702,844
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,236
of 7,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,133
of 366,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#66
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 366,897 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.