↓ Skip to main content

ASPIRE for quality: a new evidence-based tool to evaluate clinical service performance

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
ASPIRE for quality: a new evidence-based tool to evaluate clinical service performance
Published in
BMC Research Notes, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2109-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeric Uy, Lucylynn Lizarondo, Alvin Atlas

Abstract

Evaluation of clinical performance is important in allied health but without a structured approach, the measuring or monitoring of allied health performance poses a number of challenges. This highlights the need for an evidence-based evaluation tool to assist allied health practitioners in clinical performance evaluation. The ASPIRE framework was delivered to local health networks (LHN) in South Australia. Three sites participated in the pilot by providing a team to collaborate with the authors in organising and undertaking a performance evaluation. Evaluation of ASPIRE was conducted via self-administered questionnaire and a semi-structured interview with the evaluation team. Themes were identified from the responses taken from the questionnaire and interviews. All practitioners found ASPIRE useful or very useful and claimed that it helped quite a lot or a lot in the process of undertaking performance evaluation. They all rated ASPIRE as excellent or very good in terms of its appropriateness to their department, ease of implementation and pace of delivery. The interview findings verified the results of the questionnaire and added richness to the evaluation. A pilot test of ASPIRE in allied health settings showed that users found ASPIRE easy to use and appropriate in addressing patient outcomes and improved their level of confidence and motivation to evaluate clinical performance. Issues arose in terms of time constraints and identifying suitable performance indicators. Future implementation of performance evaluations using the ASPIRE framework should take these issues in consideration to allow the tool to be refined and be relevant for use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 22%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Other 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Psychology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 September 2021.
All research outputs
#20,397,576
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,577
of 4,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,494
of 353,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#60
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 353,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 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.