↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol for an evaluation of the effectiveness of ‘care bundles’ as a means of improving hospital care and reducing hospital readmission for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease …

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, February 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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Study protocol for an evaluation of the effectiveness of ‘care bundles’ as a means of improving hospital care and reducing hospital readmission for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12890-016-0197-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. J. E. Chalder, C. L. Wright, K. J. P. Morton, P. Dixon, A. R. Daykin, S. Jenkins, J. Benger, J. Calvert, A. Shaw, C. Metcalfe, W. Hollingworth, S. Purdy

Abstract

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease is one of the commonest respiratory diseases in the United Kingdom, accounting for 10 % of unplanned hospital admissions each year. Nearly a third of these admitted patients are re-admitted to hospital within 28 days of discharge. Whilst there is a move within the NHS to ensure that people with long-term conditions receive more co-ordinated care, there is little research evidence to support an optimum approach to this in COPD. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of introducing standardised packages of care i.e. care bundles, for patients with acute exacerbations of COPD as a means of improving hospital care and reducing re-admissions. This mixed-methods evaluation will use a controlled before-and-after design to examine the effect of, and costs associated with, implementing care bundles for patients admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of COPD, compared with usual care. It will quantitatively measure a range of patient and organisational outcomes for two groups of hospitals - those who deliver care using COPD care bundles, and those who deliver care without the use of COPD care bundles. These care bundles may be provided for patients with COPD following admission, prior to discharge or at both points in the care pathway. The primary outcome will be re-admission to hospital within 28 days of discharge, although the study will additionally investigate a number of secondary outcomes including length of stay, total bed days, in-hospital mortality, costs of care and patient / carer experience. A series of nested qualitative case studies will explore in detail the context and process of care as well as the impact of COPD bundles on staff, patients and carers. The results of the study will provide information about the effectiveness of care bundles as a way of managing in-hospital care for patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Given the number of unplanned hospital admissions for this patient group and their rate of subsequent re-admission, it is hoped that this evaluation will make a timely contribution to the evidence on care provision, to the benefit of patients, clinicians, managers and policy-makers. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials - ISRCTN13022442 - 11 February 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 25 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 25 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,041,348
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#206
of 1,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,070
of 298,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#2
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,920 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 298,590 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 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.