↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ perception of types of errors in palliative care – results from a qualitative interview study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, August 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Patients’ perception of types of errors in palliative care – results from a qualitative interview study
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12904-016-0141-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabel Kiesewetter, Christian Schulz, Claudia Bausewein, Rita Fountain, Andrea Schmitz

Abstract

Medical errors have been recognized as a relevant public health concern and research efforts to improve patient safety have increased. In palliative care, however, studies on errors are rare and mainly focus on quantitative measures. We aimed to explore how palliative care patients perceive and think about errors in palliative care and to generate an understanding of patients' perception of errors in that specialty. A semistructured qualitative interview study was conducted with patients who had received at least 1 week of palliative care in an inpatient or outpatient setting. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed according to qualitative content analysis. Twelve patients from two centers were interviewed (7 women, median age 63.5 years, range 22-90 years). Eleven patients suffered from a malignancy. Days in palliative care ranged from 10 to 180 days (median 28 days). 96 categories emerged which were summed up under 11 umbrella terms definition, difference, type, cause, consequence, meaning, recognition, handling, prevention, person causing and affected person. A deductive model was developed assigning umbrella terms to error-theory-based factor levels (definition, type and process-related factors). 23 categories for type of error were identified, including 12 categories that can be considered as palliative care specific. On the level of process-related factors 3 palliative care specific categories emerged (recognition, meaning and consequence of errors). From the patients' perspective, there are some aspects of errors that could be considered as specific to palliative care. As the results of our study suggest, these palliative care-specific aspects seem to be very important from the patients' point of view and should receive further investigation. Moreover, the findings of this study can serve as a guide to further assess single aspects or categories of errors in palliative care in future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Other 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 25%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 19 28%
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 29 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,952,125
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#352
of 1,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,296
of 355,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 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 1,255 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 355,869 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 29 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 68% of its contemporaries.