↓ Skip to main content

Facilitated patient experience feedback can improve nursing care: a pilot study for a phase III cluster randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2013
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Facilitated patient experience feedback can improve nursing care: a pilot study for a phase III cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-259
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Reeves, Elizabeth West, David Barron

Abstract

England's extensive NHS patient survey programme has not fulfilled government promises of widespread improvements in patients' experiences, and media reports of poor nursing care in NHS hospitals are increasingly common. Impediments to the surveys' impact on the quality of nursing care may include: the fact that they are not ward-specific, so nurses claim "that doesn't happen on my ward"; nurses' scepticism about the relevance of patient feedback to their practice; and lack of prompt communication of results. The surveys' impact could be increased by: conducting ward-specific surveys; returning results to ward staff more quickly; including patients' written comments in reports; and offering nurses an opportunity to discuss the feedback. Very few randomised trials have been conducted to test the effectiveness of patient feedback on quality improvement and there have been few, if any, published trials of ward-specific patient surveys.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 25 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 8%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 28 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 October 2013.
All research outputs
#15,622,425
of 24,748,616 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,589
of 8,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,593
of 199,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#84
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,748,616 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,364 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 199,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.