↓ Skip to main content

Implementation and adaptation of the Re-Engineered Discharge (RED) in five California hospitals: a qualitative research study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 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
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Implementation and adaptation of the Re-Engineered Discharge (RED) in five California hospitals: a qualitative research study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2242-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. E. Mitchell, G. M. Weigel, V. Laurens, J. Martin, B. W. Jack

Abstract

Project Re-Engineered Discharge (RED) is an evidence-based strategy to reduce readmissions disseminated and adapted by various health systems across the country. To date, little is known about how adapting Project RED from its original protocol impacts RED implementation and/or sustainability. The goal of this study was to identify and characterize contextual factors influencing how five California hospitals adapted and implemented RED and the subsequent impact on RED program sustainability. Participant observation and key informant and focus group interviews with 64 individuals at five California hospitals implementing RED in 2012 and 2013 were conducted. These involved hospital leadership, personnel responsible for Project RED implementation, hospital staff, and clinicians. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach and constant comparative analysis. Both internal and external contextual factors were identified that influenced hospitals' decisions on RED adaptation and implementation. These also impacted RED sustainability. External factors included: impending federal penalties for hospitals with high readmission rates targeting specific diagnoses, and access to external funding and technical support to help hospitals implement RED. Internal or organizational level contextual factors included: committed leadership prioritizing Project RED; RED adaptations; depth, accountability and influence of the implementation team; sustainability planning; and hospital culture. Only three of the five hospitals continued Project RED beyond the implementation period. The sustainability of RED in participating hospitals was only possible when hospitals approached RED implementation as a transformational process rather than a patient safety project, maintained a high level of fidelity to the RED protocol, and had leadership and an implementation team who embraced change and failure in the pursuit of better patient care and outcomes. Hospitals who were unsuccessful in implementing a sustainable RED process lacked all or most of these components in their approach.

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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 107 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 30 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Psychology 7 6%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 32 30%
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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,064,165
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,931
of 7,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,887
of 311,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#84
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 311,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.