↓ Skip to main content

Developing the ‘gripes’ tool for junior doctors to report concerns: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Developing the ‘gripes’ tool for junior doctors to report concerns: a pilot study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40814-016-0100-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Carr, T Mukherjee, A. Montgomery, M. Durbridge, C. Tarrant

Abstract

Junior doctors often have concerns about quality and safety but show low levels of engagement with incident reporting systems. We aimed to develop and pilot a web-based reporting tool for junior doctors to proactively report concerns about quality and safety of care, and optimise it for future use. We developed the gripes tool with input from junior doctors and piloted it at a large UK teaching hospital trust. We evaluated the tool through an analysis of concerns reported over a 3-month pilot period, and through interviews with five stakeholders and two focus groups with medical students and junior doctors about their views of the tool. Junior doctors reported 111 concerns during piloting, including a number of problems previously unknown to the trust. Junior doctors felt the tool was easy to use and encouraged them to report. Barriers to engagement included lack of motivation of junior doctors to report concerns, and fear of repercussions. Ensuring transparency about who would see reported concerns, and providing feedback across whole cohorts of junior doctors about concerns raised and how these had been addressed to improve patient safety at the trust, were seen having the potential to mitigate against these barriers. Sustainability of the tool was seen as requiring a revised model of staffing to share the load for responding to concerns and ongoing efforts to integrate the tool and data with other local systems for gathering intelligence about risks and incidents. Following piloting the trust committed to continuing to operate the gripes tool on an ongoing basis. The gripes tool has the potential to enable trusts to proactively monitor and address risks to patient safety, but sustainability is likely to be dependent on organisational commitment to staffing the system and perceptions of added value over the longer term.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 18%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Other 3 11%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 25%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 17 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,015,637
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#167
of 1,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,292
of 331,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 331,705 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 71% of its contemporaries.