↓ Skip to main content

Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence: a report of an interrupted time series trial of feedback in home care

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence: a report of an interrupted time series trial of feedback in home care
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0600-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberly D. Fraser, Anne E. Sales, Melba Andrea B. Baylon, Corinne Schalm, John J. Miklavcic

Abstract

There is substantial evidence about the effectiveness of audit with feedback, but none that we know have been conducted in home care settings. The primary purpose of the Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence - Home Care (DICE-HC) project was to evaluate the effects of an audit and feedback delivered to care providers on home care client outcomes. The objective of this paper is to report the effects of feedback on four specific quality indicators: pain, falls, delirium, and hospital visits. A 10-month audit with feedback intervention study was conducted with care providers in seven home care offices in Alberta, Canada, which involved delivery of four quarterly feedback reports consisting of data derived from the Resident Assessment Instrument - Home Care (RAI-HC). The primary evaluation employed an interrupted time series design using segmented regression analysis to assess the effects of feedback reporting on the four quality indicators: pain, falls, delirium, and hospitalization. Changes in level and trend of the quality indicators were measured before, during, and after the implementation of feedback reports. Pressure ulcer reporting was analyzed as a comparator condition not included in the feedback report. Care providers were surveyed on responses to feedback reporting which informed a process evaluation. At initiation of feedback report implementation, the percentage of clients reporting pain and falls significantly increased. Though the percentage of clients reporting pain and falls tended to increase and reporting of delirium and hospital visits tended to decrease relative to the pre-intervention period, there was no significant effect of feedback reporting on quality indicators during the 10-month intervention. The percentage of clients reporting falls, delirium, and hospital visits significantly increased in the 6-month period following feedback reporting relative to the intervention period. About 50% of the care providers that read and understand the feedback reports found the reports useful to make changes to the way clients are cared for. Routinely collected data used over time for feedback is feasible in home care settings. A high proportion of care providers find feedback reports useful for informing how they care for clients. Since reporting on the frequency of quality indicators increased in the post-intervention period, this study suggests that ongoing use of audit with feedback to enhance health outcomes in home care may promote improved reporting on standardized instruments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Lecturer 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 20%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 22 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,595,160
of 23,332,901 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,121
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,596
of 314,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#34
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,332,901 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 314,631 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.