| Title |
An audit of acute oncology services: patient experiences of admission procedures and staff utilisation of a new telephone triage system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-016-3370-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lorraine Warrington, Patricia Holch, Lucille Kenyon, Ceri Hector, Krystina Kozlowska, Anne Marie Kenny, Lucy Ziegler, Galina Velikova |
| Abstract |
In 2010, St. James Institute of Oncology (Leeds, UK) created a new acute oncology service (AOS) consisting of a new admissions unit with a nurse-led telephone triage (TT) system. This audit cycle (March 2011 and June 2013) evaluated patient experiences of the reconfigured AOS and staff use of the TT system. Patient views were elicited via a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The TT forms were analysed descriptively evaluating completion and data quality, reported symptoms and their severity and advice given (including admission rates). Patients (n = 40) reported high satisfaction with the new AOS. However, 56 % of patients delayed 2 days or more before contacting the unit. In 2011, 26 % of all the admitted patients were triaged via the TT system; 133 TT forms were completed. In June 2013, 49 % of the admitted patients were triaged; 264 forms were completed. The most commonly reported symptoms on the TT forms were pain, pyrexia/rigors/infection, diarrhoea, vomiting and dyspnoea. Half of the patients using the TT system were admitted (52 % in 2011, 49 % in 2013). Our audit provided evidence of successful implementation of the TT system with the number of TT forms doubling from 2011 to 2013. The new AOS was endorsed by patients, with the majority satisfied with the care they received. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Professor | 6 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 37% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,867,424
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2,945
of 4,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,960
of 343,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#43
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 343,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.