↓ Skip to main content

Concordance between nurse-reported quality of care and quality of care as publicly reported by nurse-sensitive indicators

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Concordance between nurse-reported quality of care and quality of care as publicly reported by nurse-sensitive indicators
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1372-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dewi Stalpers, Renate A. M. M. Kieft, Dimitri van der Linden, Marian J. Kaljouw, Marieke J. Schuurmans

Abstract

Nurse-sensitive indicators and nurses' satisfaction with the quality of care are two commonly used ways to measure quality of nursing care. However, little is known about the relationship between these kinds of measures. This study aimed to examine concordance between nurse-sensitive screening indicators and nurse-perceived quality of care. To calculate a composite performance score for each of six Dutch non-university teaching hospitals, the percentage scores of the publicly reported nurse-sensitive indicators: screening of delirium, screening of malnutrition, and pain assessments, were averaged (2011). Nurse-perceived quality ratings were obtained from staff nurses working in the same hospitals by the Dutch Essentials of Magnetism II survey (2010). Concordance between the quality measures was analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation. The mean screening performances ranged from 63 % to 93 % across the six hospitals. Nurse-perceived quality of care differed significantly between the hospitals, also after adjusting for nursing experience, educational level, and regularity of shifts. The hospitals with high-levels of nurse-perceived quality were also high-performing hospitals according to nurse-sensitive indicators. The relationship was true for high-performing as well as lower-performing hospitals, with strong correlations between the two quality measures (r S = 0.943, p = 0.005). Our findings showed that there is a significant positive association between objectively measured nurse-sensitive screening indicators and subjectively measured perception of quality. Moreover, the two indicators of quality of nursing care provide corresponding quality rankings. This implies that improving factors that are associated with nurses' perception of what they believe to be quality of care may also lead to better screening processes. Although convergent validity seems to be established, we emphasize that different kinds of quality measures could be used to complement each other, because various stakeholders may assign different values to the quality of nursing care.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 164 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 46 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 60 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 14%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 54 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 October 2017.
All research outputs
#5,970,787
of 23,211,181 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,731
of 7,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,972
of 301,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#31
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,211,181 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,777 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 301,888 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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.