↓ Skip to main content

Improving quality of care through improved audit and feedback

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2012
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Improving quality of care through improved audit and feedback
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-45
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvia J Hysong, Cayla R Teal, Myrna J Khan, Paul Haidet

Abstract

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the industry in measuring facility performance as a critical element in improving quality of care, investing substantial resources to develop and maintain valid and cost-effective measures. The External Peer Review Program (EPRP) of the VA is the official data source for monitoring facility performance, used to prioritize the quality areas needing most attention. Facility performance measurement has significantly improved preventive and chronic care, as well as overall quality; however, much variability still exists in levels of performance across measures and facilities. Audit and feedback (A&F), an important component of effective performance measurement, can help reduce this variability and improve overall performance. Previous research suggests that VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) with high EPRP performance scores tend to use EPRP data as a feedback source. However, the manner in which EPRP data are used as a feedback source by individual providers as well as service line, facility, and network leadership is not well understood. An in-depth understanding of mental models, strategies, and specific feedback process characteristics adopted by high-performing facilities is thus urgently needed.This research compares how leaders of high, low, and moderately performing VAMCs use clinical performance data from the EPRP as a feedback tool to maintain and improve quality of care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 120 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Other 10 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 20 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 26 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,027,690
of 23,692,259 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#656
of 1,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,019
of 165,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#11
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,692,259 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 165,536 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 66% of its contemporaries.