↓ Skip to main content

Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Malcolm Moore, Chris Roberts, Jonathan Newbury, Jim Crossley

Abstract

Good clinical handover is critical to safe medical care. Little research has investigated handover in rural settings. In a remote setting where nurses and medical students give telephone handover to an aeromedical retrieval service, we developed a tool by which the receiving clinician might assess the handover; and investigated factors impacting on the reliability and validity of that assessment. Researchers consulted with clinicians to develop an assessment tool, based on the ISBAR handover framework, combining validity evidence and the existing literature. The tool was applied 'live' by receiving clinicians and from recorded handovers by academic assessors. The tool's performance was analysed using generalisability theory. Receiving clinicians and assessors provided feedback. Reliability for assessing a call was good (G = 0.73 with 4 assessments). The scale had a single factor structure with good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.8). The group mean for the global score for nurses and students was 2.30 (SD 0.85) out of a maximum 3.0, with no difference between these sub-groups. We have developed and evaluated a tool to assess high-stakes handover in a remote setting. It showed good reliability and was easy for working clinicians to use. Further investigation and use is warranted beyond this setting.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 6 5%
Researcher 5 4%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 42 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 19%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 40 35%
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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,030,043
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,229
of 3,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,998
of 324,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#42
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 324,977 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.