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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Healthcare Quality Improvement and ‘work engagement’; concluding results from a national, longitudinal, cross-sectional study of the ‘Productive Ward-Releasing Time to Care’ Programme
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-017-2446-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark White, Tony Butterworth, John SG Wells |
| Abstract |
Concerns about patient safety and reducing harm have led to a particular focus on initiatives that improve healthcare quality. However Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives have in the past typically faltered because they fail to fully engage healthcare professionals, resulting in apathy and resistance amongst this group of key stakeholders. Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care (PW) is a ward-based QI programme created to help ward-based teams redesign and streamline the way that they work; leaving more time to care for patients. PW is designed to engage and empower ward-based teams to improve the safety, quality and delivery of care. The main objective of this study was to explore whether PW sustains the 'engagement' of ward-based teams by examining the longitudinal effect that the national QI programme had on the 'work-engagement' of ward-based teams in Ireland. Utilising the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale questionnaire (UWES-17), we surveyed nine PW (intervention) sites from typical acute Medical/Surgical, Rehabilitation and Elderly services (representing the entire cohort of a national phase of PW implementation in Ireland) and a cohort of matched control sites. The numbers surveyed from the PW group at T1 (up to 3 months after commencing the programme) totalled 253 ward-team members and 249 from the control group. At T2 (12 months later), the survey was repeated with 233 ward-team members from the PW sites and 236 from the control group. Overall findings demonstrated that those involved in the QI initiative had higher 'engagement' scores at T1 and T2 in comparison to the control group. Total 'engagement' score (TES), and its 3 dimensions, were all significantly higher in the PW group at T1, but only the Vigour dimension remained significantly higher at T2 (p = 0.006). Our results lend some support to the assertions of the PW initiative itself and suggest that when compared to a control group, ward-based teams involved in the QI programme are more likely to be 'engaged' by it and its associated improvement activities and that this is maintained over time. However, only the Vigour dimension of 'engagement' remained significantly higher in the PW over time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 9 | 39% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 65% |
| Scientists | 5 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 179 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 6% |
| Professor | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 69 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 20% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 19 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 11% |
| Engineering | 15 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Unknown | 70 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,219,417
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#855
of 8,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,599
of 322,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#35
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 322,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.