↓ Skip to main content

A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, January 2016
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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40814-016-0049-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona M. Nolan, Chris Fox, Richard Cheston, David Turner, Allan Clark, Emily Dodd, Mary-Ellen Khoo, Richard Gray

Abstract

Protected engagement time (PET) is a concept of managing staff time on mental health inpatient wards with the aim of increasing staff and patient interaction. Despite apparent widespread use of PET, there remains a dearth of evidence as to how it is implemented and whether it carries benefits for staff or patients. This protocol describes a study which is being carried out on mental health wards caring for older adults (aged over 65) in England. The study shares a large proportion of the procedures, measures and study team membership of a recently completed investigation of the impact of PET in adult acute mental health wards. The study aims to identify prevalence and components of PET to construct a model for the intervention, in addition to testing the feasibility of the measures and procedures in preparation for a randomised trial. The study comprises four modules and uses a mixed methods approach. Module 1 involves mapping all inpatient wards in England which provide care for older adults, including those with dementia, ascertaining how many of these provide PET and in what way. Module 2 uses a prospective cohort method to compare five older adult mental health wards that use PET with five that do not across three National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust sites. The comparison comprises questionnaires, observation tools and routinely collected clinical service data and combines validated measures with questions developed specifically for the study. Module 3 entails an in-depth case study evaluation of three of the participating PET wards (one from each NHS Trust site) using semi-structured interviews with patients, carers and staff. Module 4 describes the development of a model and fidelity scale for PET using the information derived from the other modules with a working group of patients, carers and staff. This is a feasibility study to test the application of the measures and methods in inpatient wards for older adults and develop a draft model for the intervention. The next stage will prospectively involve testing of the model and fidelity scale in randomised conditions to provide evidence for the effectiveness of PET as an intervention. ISRCTN31919196.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Social Sciences 3 16%
Psychology 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,273,679
of 13,322,622 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#127
of 380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,100
of 336,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,322,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 336,129 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.