↓ Skip to main content

Keys to success of a community of clinical practice in primary care: a qualitative evaluation of the ECOPIH project

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Keys to success of a community of clinical practice in primary care: a qualitative evaluation of the ECOPIH project
Published in
BMC Primary Care, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0739-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Lacasta Tintorer, Josep Maria Manresa Domínguez, Enriqueta Pujol-Rivera, Souhel Flayeh Beneyto, Xavier Mundet Tuduri, Francesc Saigí-Rubió

Abstract

The current reality of primary care (PC) makes it essential to have telemedicine systems available to facilitate communication between care levels. Communities of practice have great potential in terms of care and education, and that is why the Online Communication Tool between Primary and Hospital Care was created. This tool enables PC and non-GP specialist care (SC) professionals to raise clinical cases for consultation and to share information. The objective of this article is to explore healthcare professionals' views on communities of clinical practice (CoCPs) and the changes that need to be made in an uncontrolled real-life setting after more than two years of use. A descriptive-interpretative qualitative study was conducted on a total of 29 healthcare professionals who were users and non-users of a CoCP using 2 focus groups, 3 triangular groups and 5 individual interviews. There were 18 women, 21 physicians and 8 nurses. Of the interviewees, 21 were PC professionals, 24 were users of a CoCP and 7 held managerial positions. For a system of communication between PC and SC to become a tool that is habitually used and very useful, the interviewees considered that it would have to be able to find quick, effective solutions to the queries raised, based on up-to-date information that is directly applicable to daily clinical practice. Contact should be virtual - and probably collaborative - via a platform integrated into their habitual workstations and led by PC professionals. Organisational changes should be implemented to enable users to have more time in their working day to spend on the tool, and professionals should have a proactive attitude in order to make the most if its potential. It is also important to make certain technological changes, basically aimed at improving the tool's accessibility, by integrating it into habitual clinical workstations. The collaborative tool that provides reliable, up-to-date information that is highly transferrable to clinical practice is valued for its effectiveness, efficiency and educational capacity. In order to make the most of its potential in terms of care and education, organisational changes and techniques are required to foster greater use.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 51 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 17%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 59 40%
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 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,253,533
of 25,380,089 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#644
of 1,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,873
of 322,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,089 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 1,551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 322,600 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.