↓ Skip to main content

One size does not fit all: a qualitative content analysis of the importance of existing quality improvement capacity in the implementation of Releasing Time to Care: the Productive Ward™ in…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
One size does not fit all: a qualitative content analysis of the importance of existing quality improvement capacity in the implementation of Releasing Time to Care: the Productive Ward™ in Saskatchewan, Canada
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0642-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica Hamilton, Tanya Verrall, Jill Maben, Peter Griffiths, Kyla Avis, G Ross Baker, Gary Teare

Abstract

BackgroundReleasing Time to Care: The Productive WardTM(RTC) is a method for conducting continuous quality improvement (QI). The Saskatchewan Ministry of Health mandated its implementation in Saskatchewan, Canada between 2008 and 2012. Subsequently, a research team was developed to evaluate its impact on the nursing unit environment. We sought to explore the influence of the unit¿s existing QI capacity on their ability to engage with RTC as a program for continuous QI.MethodsWe conducted interviews with staff from 8 nursing units and asked them to speak about their experience doing RTC. Using qualitative content analysis, and guided by the Organizing for Quality framework, we describe the existing QI capacity and impact of RTC on the unit environment.ResultsThe results focus on 2 units chosen to highlight extreme variation in existing QI capacity. Unit B was characterized by a strong existing environment. RTC was implemented in an environment with a motivated manager and collaborative culture. Aided by the structural support provided by the organization, the QI capacity on this unit was strengthened through RTC. Staff recognized the potential of using the RTC processes to support QI work. Staff on unit E did not have the same experience with RTC. Like unit B, they had similar structural supports provided by their organization but they did not have the same existing cultural or political environment to facilitate the implementation of RTC. They did not have internal motivation and felt they were only doing RTC because they had to. Though they had some success with RTC activities, the staff did not have the same understanding of the methods that RTC could provide for continuous QI work.ConclusionsRTC has the potential to be a strong tool for engaging units to do QI. This occurs best when RTC is implemented in a supporting environment. One size does not fit all and administrative bodies must consider the unique context of each environment prior to implementing large-scale QI projects. Use of an established framework, like Organizing for Quality, could highlight the distinctive supports needed in particular care environments to increase the likelihood of successful engagement.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 January 2015.
All research outputs
#7,340,245
of 25,480,126 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,574
of 8,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,602
of 360,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#51
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,480,126 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 360,657 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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 59% of its contemporaries.