↓ Skip to main content

Effects of auditing patient safety in hospital care: design of a mixed-method evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2013
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
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Effects of auditing patient safety in hospital care: design of a mixed-method evaluation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-226
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirelle Hanskamp-Sebregts, Marieke Zegers, Wilma Boeijen, Gert P Westert, Petra J van Gurp, Hub Wollersheim

Abstract

Auditing of patient safety aims at early detection of risks of adverse events and is intended to encourage the continuous improvement of patient safety. The auditing should be an independent, objective assurance and consulting system. Auditing helps an organisation accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluating and improving the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance. Audits are broadly conducted in hospitals, but little is known about their effects on the behaviour of healthcare professionals and patient safety outcomes. This study was initiated to evaluate the effects of patient safety auditing in hospital care and to explore the processes and mechanisms underlying these effects.Methods and design: Our study aims to evaluate an audit system to monitor and improve patient safety in a hospital setting. We are using a mixed-method evaluation with a before-and-after study design in eight departments of one university hospital in the period October 2011--July 2014. We measure several outcomes 3 months before the audit and 15 months after the audit. The primary outcomes are adverse events and complications. The secondary outcomes are experiences of patients, the standardised mortality ratio, prolonged hospital stay, patient safety culture, and team climate. We use medical record reviews, questionnaires, hospital administrative data, and observations to assess the outcomes. A process evaluation will be used to find out which components of internal auditing determine the effects.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 129 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 30 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 32 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,891,295
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,898
of 7,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,504
of 196,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#71
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 196,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.