↓ Skip to main content

It could be a ‘Golden Goose’: a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
It could be a ‘Golden Goose’: a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation
Published in
BMC Family Practice, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0398-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison Porter, Mark Rhys Kingston, Bridie Angela Evans, Hayley Hutchings, Shirley Whitman, Helen Snooks

Abstract

Rising demand for health care has prompted interest in new technologies to support a shift of care from hospital to community and primary care, which may require clinicians to undertake new working practices. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) was developed for use in primary care to estimate patients' risk of an emergency hospital admission. As part of an evaluation of Prism, we aimed to understand what might be needed to bring Prism into effective use by exploring clinicians and practice managers' attitudes and expectations about using it. We were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) which examines the work needed to bring an innovation into use. We conducted 4 focus groups and 10 interviews with a total of 43 primary care doctors and colleagues from 32 general practices. All were recorded and transcribed. Analysis focussed in particular on the construct of 'coherence' within NPT, which examines how people understand an innovation and its purpose. Respondents were in agreement that Prism was a technological formalisation of existing practice, and that it would function as a support to clinical judgment, rather than replacing it. There was broad consensus about the role it might have in delivering new models of care based on active management, but there were doubts about the scope for making a difference to some patients and about whether Prism could identify at-risk patients not already known to the clinical team. Respondents did not expect using the tool to be onerous, but were concerned about the work which might follow in delivering care. Any potential value would not be of the tool in isolation, but would depend on the availability of support services. Policy imperatives and the pressure of rising demand meant respondents were open to trying out Prism, despite underlying uncertainty about what difference it could make. Controlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Psychology 5 8%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 13 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,137,397
of 13,757,863 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#604
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,530
of 363,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#79
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,757,863 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 363,358 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.