↓ Skip to main content

Mental models of audit and feedback in primary care settings

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2018
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Mental models of audit and feedback in primary care settings
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0764-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvia J. Hysong, Kristen Smitham, Richard SoRelle, Amber Amspoker, Ashley M. Hughes, Paul Haidet

Abstract

Audit and feedback has been shown to be instrumental in improving quality of care, particularly in outpatient settings. The mental model individuals and organizations hold regarding audit and feedback can moderate its effectiveness, yet this has received limited study in the quality improvement literature. In this study we sought to uncover patterns in mental models of current feedback practices within high- and low-performing healthcare facilities. We purposively sampled 16 geographically dispersed VA hospitals based on high and low performance on a set of chronic and preventive care measures. We interviewed up to 4 personnel from each location (n = 48) to determine the facility's receptivity to audit and feedback practices. Interview transcripts were analyzed via content and framework analysis to identify emergent themes. We found high variability in the mental models of audit and feedback, which we organized into positive and negative themes. We were unable to associate mental models of audit and feedback with clinical performance due to high variance in facility performance over time. Positive mental models exhibit perceived utility of audit and feedback practices in improving performance; whereas, negative mental models did not. Results speak to the variability of mental models of feedback, highlighting how facilities perceive current audit and feedback practices. Findings are consistent with prior research  in that variability in feedback mental models is associated with lower performance.; Future research should seek to empirically link mental models revealed in this paper to high and low levels of clinical performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 21%
Researcher 7 16%
Other 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Social Sciences 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,826,157
of 25,363,868 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#583
of 1,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,567
of 344,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,363,868 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 344,142 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 69% of its contemporaries.