↓ Skip to main content

Intensive care discharge summaries for general practice staff: a focus group study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, November 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Intensive care discharge summaries for general practice staff: a focus group study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, November 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x688045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne Bench, Jocelyn Cornish, Andreas Xyrichis

Abstract

Understanding how patients and relatives can be supported after hospital discharge is a UK research priority. Intensive Care Unit (ICU) discharge summaries are a simple way of providing GPs with the information they require to coordinate ongoing care, but little evidence is available to guide best practice. This study aimed at better understanding the information needs of GP staff (GPs and practice nurses) supporting former patients of ICUs and their families following discharge from hospital, and identifying the barriers/facilitators associated with ICU-primary care information transfer. This was a qualitative exploratory study of practices and participants throughout the UK. Audiotaped focus group discussions, complemented by small-group/individual interviews, were conducted with 15 former patients of ICUs, four relatives, and 20 GP staff between June and September 2015. Demographic data were captured by questionnaire and qualitative data were thematically analysed. Findings suggest variability in discharge information experiences and blurred lines of responsibility between hospital and GP staff, and patients/relatives. Continuity of care was affected by delayed or poor communication from the hospital; GPs' limited contact with patients from critical care; and a lack of knowledge of the effects of critical illness or resources available to ameliorate these difficulties. Time pressures and information technology were, respectively, the most commonly mentioned barrier and facilitator. Effective rehabilitation after a critical illness requires a coordinated and comprehensive approach, incorporating the provision of well-completed, timely, and relevant ICU-primary care discharge information. Health professionals need an improved understanding of critical illness, and patients and families must be included in all aspects of the information-sharing process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Other 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 21%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 26 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,310,938
of 24,189,858 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#640
of 4,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,275
of 422,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#15
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,189,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 422,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.