↓ Skip to main content

Factors facilitating a national quality registry to aid clinical quality improvement: findings of a national survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Factors facilitating a national quality registry to aid clinical quality improvement: findings of a national survey
Published in
BMJ Open, November 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011562
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann Catrine Eldh, Lars Wallin, Mio Fredriksson, Sofie Vengberg, Ulrika Winblad, Christina Halford, Tobias Dahlström

Abstract

While national quality registries (NQRs) are suggested to provide opportunities for systematic follow-up and learning opportunities, and thus clinical improvements, features in registries and contexts triggering such processes are not fully known. This study focuses on one of the world's largest stroke registries, the Swedish NQR Riksstroke, investigating what aspects of the registry and healthcare organisations facilitate or hinder the use of registry data in clinical quality improvement. Following particular qualitative studies, we performed a quantitative survey in an exploratory sequential design. The survey, including 50 items on context, processes and the registry, was sent to managers, physicians and nurses engaged in Riksstroke in all 72 Swedish stroke units. Altogether, 242 individuals were presented with the survey; 163 responded, representing all but two units. Data were analysed descriptively and through multiple linear regression. A majority (88%) considered Riksstroke data to facilitate detection of stroke care improvement needs and acknowledged that their data motivated quality improvements (78%). The use of Riksstroke for quality improvement initiatives was associated (R(2)=0.76) with 'Colleagues' call for local results' (p=<0.001), 'Management Request of Registry data' (p=<0.001), and it was said to be 'Simple to explain the results to colleagues' (p=0.02). Using stepwise regression, 'Colleagues' call for local results' was identified as the most influential factor. Yet, while 73% reported that managers request registry data, only 39% reported that their colleagues call for the unit's Riksstroke results. While an NQR like Riksstroke demonstrates improvement needs and motivates stakeholders to make progress, local stroke care staff and managers need to engage to keep the momentum going in terms of applying registry data when planning, performing and evaluating quality initiatives.

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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Lecturer 2 10%
Other 6 29%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,784,344
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#15,438
of 25,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,057
of 319,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#306
of 451 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 319,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 451 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.