↓ Skip to main content

Money’s (not) on my mind: a qualitative study of how staff and managers understand health care’s triple Aim

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Money’s (not) on my mind: a qualitative study of how staff and managers understand health care’s triple Aim
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2052-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Höjriis Storkholm, Pamela Mazzocato, Mairi Savage, Carl Savage

Abstract

The "Triple Aim" - provision of a better care experience and improved population health at a lower cost - may be theoretically sound, but paradoxical in practice as it forces together the logics of management and medicine. The aim of this study was to explore how staff and managers understand the change imperative inherent to the Triple Aim and the mental models underlying their understanding. This qualitative study builds on thirty semi-structured interviews conducted with managers, nurses, midwives, medical secretaries, and physicians at a department of Gynecology and Obstetrics in Denmark who successfully cut costs through staff and bed reductions and, from what we can ascertain, maintained care quality. Mental models were articulated from a content analysis of the interviews. Staff and managers identified with the different dimensions of the Triple Aim along classic professional divides, i.e. nurses and midwives focused on patient experience, physicians on health outcomes, and manager on all three. Underlying these, we found four mental models. The understanding of change was guided by a Professional ethos (inner drive to improve care) and a Socio-political discourse (external requirement to become more efficient) mental model. The understanding of economics was guided by a You-get-what-you-pay-for and by a More-bang-for-the-buck mental model. A complex interplay could be discerned between all four, which led staff to see the Triple Aim as a dilemma between quality and economics and a threat to clinical care and quality, whereas managers saw it as a paradox that invited improvement efforts. Despite these differences, managers chose a change strategy in line with staff mental models. The practical challenges inherent to the Triple Aim may be symptomatic of the interactions between the different mental models that guide staff and managers' understanding and choice of change strategies. Pursuit of quality improvement in the face of financial constraints (the essence of the Triple Aim) may be facilitated through conscious exploration of these empirically identified mental models. Managers might do well to translate the socio-political discourse into a change process that resonates with the mental models held by staff.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 21 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 January 2017.
All research outputs
#14,003,371
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,703
of 8,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,477
of 428,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#91
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 428,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.