↓ Skip to main content

Examining the implementation of NICE guidance: cross-sectional survey of the use of NICE interventional procedures guidance by NHS Trusts

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, June 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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Examining the implementation of NICE guidance: cross-sectional survey of the use of NICE interventional procedures guidance by NHS Trusts
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0283-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin Lowson, Michelle Jenks, Alexandra Filby, Louise Carr, Bruce Campbell, John Powell

Abstract

In the UK, NHS hospitals receive large amounts of evidence-based recommendations for care delivery from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other organisations. Little is known about how NHS organisations implement such guidance and best practice for doing so. This study was therefore designed to examine the dissemination, decision-making, and monitoring processes for NICE interventional procedures (IP) guidance and to investigate the barriers and enablers to the implementation of such guidance. A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to individuals responsible for managing the processes around NICE guidance in all 181 acute NHS hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A review of acute NHS hospital policies for implementing NICE guidance was also undertaken using information available in the public domain and from organisations' websites. The response rate to the survey was 75 % with 135 completed surveys received. Additionally, policies from 25 % of acute NHS hospitals were identified and analysed. NHS acute hospitals typically had detailed processes in place to implement NICE guidance, although organisations recognised barriers to implementation including organisational process barriers, clinical engagement and poor targeting with a large number of guidance issued. Examples of enablers to, and good practice for, implementation of guidance were found, most notably the value of shared learning experiences between NHS hospitals. Implications for NICE were also identified. These included making improvements to the layout of guidance, signposting on the website and making better use of their shared learning platform. Most organisations have robust processes in place to deal with implementing guidance. However, resource limitations and the scope of guidance received by organisations create barriers relating to organisational processes, clinician engagement and financing of new procedures. Guidance implementation can be facilitated through encouragement of shared learning by organisations such as NICE and open knowledge transfer between organisations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 113 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Psychology 11 10%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 34 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 2015.
All research outputs
#2,166,190
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#490
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,945
of 262,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#17
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 262,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 71% of its contemporaries.