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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Adapting the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT) for use in care home quality monitoring: conceptual development and testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-015-0942-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ann-Marie Towers, Jacquetta Holder, Nick Smith, Tanya Crowther, Ann Netten, Elizabeth Welch, Grace Collins |
| Abstract |
Alongside an increased policy and practice emphasis on outcomes in social care, English local authorities are now obliged to review quality at a service level to help in their new role of ensuring the development of diverse and high-quality care markets to meet the needs of all local people, including self-funders. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) has been developed to measure the outcomes of social care for individuals in a variety of care settings. Local authorities have expressed an interest in exploring how the toolkit might be used for their own purposes, including quality monitoring. This study aimed to explore how the care homes version of the ASCOT toolkit might be adapted for use as a care home quality indicator and carry out some preliminary testing in two care homes for older adults. Consultations were carried out with professional and lay stakeholders, with an interest in using the tool or the ratings it would produce. These explored demand and potential uses for the measure and fed into the conceptual development. A draft toolkit and method for collecting the data was developed and the feasibility of using it for quality monitoring was tested with one local authority quality monitoring team in two homes for older adults. Stakeholders expressed an interest in care home quality ratings based on residents' outcomes but there were tensions around who might collect the data and how it might be shared. Feasibility testing suggested the measure had potential for use in quality monitoring but highlighted the importance of training in observational techniques and interviewing skills. The quality monitoring officers involved in the piloting recommended that relatives' views be collected in advance of visits, through surveys not interviews. Following interest from another local authority, a larger evaluation of the measure for use in routine quality monitoring is planned. As part of this, the ratings made using this measure will be validated against the outcomes of individual residents and compared with the quality ratings of the regulator, the Care Quality Commission. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 16% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
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 18 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,130,740
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,871
of 7,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,685
of 264,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#45
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 264,223 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 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 63% of its contemporaries.