↓ Skip to main content

Determining priorities for research to improve fundamental care on hospital wards

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 416)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
98 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Determining priorities for research to improve fundamental care on hospital wards
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40900-016-0045-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Ball, Claire Ballinger, Anya De Iongh, Chiara Dall’Ora, Sally Crowe, Peter Griffiths

Abstract

The aim of this project was to find out the priorities for research that could improve fundamental care. 'Fundamental care' covers all aspects of basic care in hospital wards, such as helping with core physical needs, building positive relationships and keeping patients safe.By setting the priorities with patients, carers, the public and health care professionals, research can look at the issues that really matter to people who are receiving or delivering care in hospital wards.Previously, prioritisation exercises have started with a menu of options and asked people to choose from that list. They have also been focused on specific health conditions. Traditionally, there has been little opportunity for patients, carers and the public to contribute to identifying the issues to be prioritised.To develop the priorities for research, we started by exploring what is meant by 'fundamental care', looking at patient and carer accounts and academic and policy reports. Patients, carers, staff, and members of the public were consulted via surveys, interviews and group discussions to share experiences and issues.A list of 15 topics was identified based on what was most commonly mentioned by patients, carers and healthcare professionals as well as what was practical for the CLAHRC Wessex team to research. A workshop with patients, carers and healthcare professionals was held, to decide the top 5 areas.The five priority areas identified were:Nurse staffingIndividualised patient careStaff communicationStaff attitudes and relationships with patientsInformation about care/communication. Background The provision of high quality fundamental care in hospitals is a top priority for the NHS. Recent reports and investigations highlight that at times care has fallen below standard. It is unclear what research should be prioritised to improve care. The aim of this work is to involve patients/carers/public, clinicians and other stakeholders to identify issues that are priorities for research which could improve fundamental care in hospital.MethodsPatient and public involvement was integral to this project, with a patient leader/service user being a member of the core team who designed and executed this research. After consideration of existing priority setting approaches, we developed an inclusive approach which consisted of six main phases: 1) Development of a conceptual framework of fundamental care, based on reports and literature 2) Consultation with a wide range of stakeholders through a survey, focus groups and interviews 3) Identifying themes from the responses to the consultation phase (76 themes identified) 4) Analysis to identify the 15 topics most frequently cited 5) Prioritisation of the top 15 themes through a half day workshop, which led to a shortlist of five themes 6) Development of the top 5 themes into research areas.ResultsThree hundred forty stakeholders (29 % of whom were patients/carers/public) completed the consultation survey. Analysis of the survey responses and of focus groups and interviews led us to identify 15 high scoring themes. We presented these at the prioritisation workshop, attended by 39 participants (23 of whom patients/carers/public). After a voting exercise, the 5 top research priorities which emerged were: nurse staffing; individualised patient care; staff communication; staff attitudes and relationships with patients; and information about care.ConclusionsWe involved a range of stakeholders in identifying topics for research to improve fundamental care and asked them to prioritise these. The process provided a means of reaching consensus as to the important issues for future research to focus on to improve fundamental care on hospital wards.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 98 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Researcher 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#647,143
of 23,907,431 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#29
of 416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,965
of 399,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,907,431 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 399,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.