↓ Skip to main content

Understanding staff perspectives of quality in practice in healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 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
Understanding staff perspectives of quality in practice in healthcare
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0788-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Farr, Peter Cressey

Abstract

Extensive work has been focussed on developing and analysing different performance and quality measures in health services. However less has been published on how practitioners understand and assess performance and the quality of care in routine practice. This paper explores how health service staff understand and assess their own performance and quality of their day to day work. Asking staff how they knew they were doing a good job, it explored the values, motivations and behaviours of staff in relation to healthcare performance. The paper illustrates how staff perceptions of quality and performance are often based on different logics to the dominant notions of performance and quality embedded in current policy. Using grounded theory and qualitative, in-depth interviews this research studied how primary care staff understood and assessed their own performance and quality in everyday practice. 21 people were interviewed, comprising of health visitors, occupational therapists, managers, human resources staff and administrators. Analytic themes were developed using open and axial coding. Diverse aspects of quality and performance in healthcare are rooted in differing organisational logics. Staff values and personal and professional standards are an essential element in understanding how quality is co-produced in everyday service interactions. Tensions can exist between patient centred, relational care and the pressures of efficiency and rationalisation. Understanding the perspectives of staff in relation to how quality in practice develops helps us to reflect on different mechanisms to manage quality. Quality in everyday practice relies upon staff values, motivations and behaviours and how staff interact with patients, putting both explicit and tacit knowledge into specific action. However organisational systems that manage quality often operate on the basis of rational measurement. These do not always incorporate the intangible, relational and tacit dimensions of care. Management models need to account for these relational and experiential aspects of care quality to support the prioritisation of patients' needs. Services management, knowledge management and ethics of care literature can provide stronger theoretical building blocks to understand how to manage quality in practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 267 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 8%
Researcher 19 7%
Other 49 18%
Unknown 76 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 30 11%
Social Sciences 26 10%
Psychology 12 4%
Other 34 12%
Unknown 82 30%
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 10 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,884,189
of 24,052,577 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,323
of 8,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,710
of 269,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#43
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,052,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 269,165 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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 54% of its contemporaries.