↓ Skip to main content

Mapping the decision pathways of acute infection management in secondary care among UK medical physicians: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Mapping the decision pathways of acute infection management in secondary care among UK medical physicians: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0751-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy Miles Rawson, Esmita Charani, Luke Stephen Prockter Moore, Bernard Hernandez, Enrique Castro-Sánchez, Pau Herrero, Pantelis Georgiou, Alison Helen Holmes

Abstract

The inappropriate use of antimicrobials drives antimicrobial resistance. We conducted a study to map physician decision-making processes for acute infection management in secondary care to identify potential targets for quality improvement interventions. Physicians newly qualified to consultant level participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis using NVIVO11.0 software. Grounded theory methodology was applied. Analytical categories were created using constant comparison approach to the data and participants were recruited to the study until thematic saturation was reached. Twenty physicians were interviewed. The decision pathway for the management of acute infections follows a Bayesian-like step-wise approach, with information processed and systematically added to prior assumptions to guide management. The main emerging themes identified as determinants of the decision-making of individual physicians were (1) perceptions of providing 'optimal' care for the patient with infection by providing rapid and often intravenous therapy; (2) perceptions that stopping/de-escalating therapy was a senior doctor decision with junior trainees not expected to contribute; and (3) expectation of interactions with local guidelines and microbiology service advice. Feedback on review of junior doctor prescribing decisions was often lacking, causing frustration and confusion on appropriate practice within this cohort. Interventions to improve infection management must incorporate mechanisms to promote distribution of responsibility for decisions made. The disparity between expectations of prescribers to start but not review/stop therapy must be urgently addressed with mechanisms to improve communication and feedback to junior prescribers to facilitate their continued development as prudent antimicrobial prescribers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 8 7%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 31%
Psychology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 37 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 30 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,000,344
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,341
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,714
of 422,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#27
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 422,402 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 58% of its contemporaries.