↓ Skip to main content

Why is patient safety so hard in low-income countries? A qualitative study of healthcare workers’ views in two African hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, February 2015
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 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
Why is patient safety so hard in low-income countries? A qualitative study of healthcare workers’ views in two African hospitals
Published in
Globalization and Health, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12992-015-0096-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma-Louise Aveling, Yvette Kayonga, Ansha Nega, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract

The views of practitioners at the sharp end of health care provision are now recognised as a valuable source of intelligence that can inform efforts to improve patient safety in high-income countries. Yet despite growing policy emphasis on patient safety in low-income countries, little research examines the views of practitioners in these settings. We aimed to give voice to how healthcare workers in two East African hospitals identify and explain the major obstacles to ensuring the safety of patients in their care. We conducted in-depth, face to face interviews with healthcare workers in two East African hospitals. Our sample included a total of 57 hospital staff, including nurses, physicians, technicians, clinical services staff, administrative staff and hospital managers. Hospital staff in low-income settings offered broadly encompassing and aspirational definitions of patient safety. They identified obstacles to patient safety across three major themes: material context, staffing issues and inter-professional working relationships. Participants distinguished between the proximal influences on patient safety that posed an immediate threat to patient care, and the distal influences that generated the contexts for such hazards. These included contexts of severe material deprivation, but also the impact of relational factors such as teamwork and professional hierarchies. Structures of authority, governance and control that were not optimally aligned with achieving patient safety were widely reported. As in high-income countries, the accounts of healthcare workers in low-income countries provide sophisticated and valuable insights into the challenges of patient safety. Though the impact of resource constraints and weak governance structures are particularly marked in low-income countries, the congruence between accounts of health workers in diverse settings suggest that the origins and solutions to patient safety problems are likely to be similar everywhere and are rooted in human factors, resources, culture and behaviour. While additional resources are essential to patient safety improvement in low-income settings, such resources on their own will not be sufficient to secure the changes needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 162 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 38 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 21%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Engineering 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 40 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 27 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,929,156
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#316
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,782
of 270,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 1,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 270,083 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 15 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 60% of its contemporaries.