↓ Skip to main content

What helps or hinders the transformation from a major tertiary center to a major trauma center? Identifying barriers and enablers using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
What helps or hinders the transformation from a major tertiary center to a major trauma center? Identifying barriers and enablers using the Theoretical Domains Framework
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0226-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil Roberts, Fabiana Lorencatto, Joanna Manson, Susan I Brundage, Jan O Jansen

Abstract

Major Trauma Centers (MTCs), as part of a trauma system, improve survival and functional outcomes from injury. Developing such centers from current teaching hospitals is likely to generate diverse beliefs amongst staff. These may act as barriers or enablers. Prior identification of these may make the service development process more efficient. The importance of applying theory to systematically identify barriers and enablers to changing clinical practice in emergency medicine has been emphasized. This study systematically explored theory-based barriers and enablers towards implementing the transformation of a tertiary hospital into a MTC. Our goal was to demonstrate the use of a replicable method to identify targets that could be addressed to achieve a successful transformation from an organization evolved to provide a particular type of clinical care into a clinical system with different demands, requirements and expectations. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is a tool designed to elicit and analyze beliefs affecting behavior. Semi-structured interviews based around the TDF were conducted in a major tertiary hospital in Scotland due to become a MTC with a purposive sample of major stakeholders including clinicians and nurses from specialties involved in trauma care, clinical managers and administration. Belief statements were identified through qualitative analysis, and assessed for importance according to prevalence, discordance and evidence base. 1728 utterances were recorded and coded into 91 belief statements. 58 were classified as important barriers/enablers. There were major concerns about resource demands, with optimism conditional on these being met. Distracting priorities abound within the Emergency Department. Better communication is needed. Staff motivation is high and they should be engaged in skills development and developing performance improvement processes. This study presents a systematic and replicable method of identifying theory-based barriers and enablers towards complex service development. It identifies multiple barriers/enablers that may serve as a basis for developing an implementation intervention to enhance the development of MTCs. This method can be used to address similar challenges in developing specialist centers or implementing clinical practice change in emergency care across both developing and developed countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 16 16%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 25 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 26 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,575,107
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#266
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,458
of 302,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#6
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 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 1,278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 302,053 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.