↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-420
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Sheard, Jane O’Hara, Gerry Armitage, John Wright, Kim Cocks, Rosemary McEachan, Ian Watt, Rebecca Lawton

Abstract

Estimates show that as many as one in 10 patients are harmed while receiving hospital care. Previous strategies to improve safety have focused on developing incident reporting systems and changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with little involvement of patients. The need to engage with patients about the quality and safety of their care has never been more evident with recent high profile reviews of poor hospital care all emphasising the need to develop and support better systems for capturing and responding to the patient perspective on their care. Over the past 3 years, our research team have developed, tested and refined the PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention, which gains patient feedback about quality and safety on hospital wards.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 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 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 17%
Psychology 12 13%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 20 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 14 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,106,095
of 14,718,557 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#386
of 3,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,521
of 233,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#24
of 325 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,718,557 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 233,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 325 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.