↓ Skip to main content

Co-Producing Interprofessional Round Work

Overview of attention for article published in Quality Management in Health Care, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Co-Producing Interprofessional Round Work
Published in
Quality Management in Health Care, April 2017
DOI 10.1097/qmh.0000000000000133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin Thörne, Boel Andersson-Gäre, Håkan Hult, Madeleine Abrandt-Dahlgren

Abstract

Within wide-ranging quality improvement agendas, patient involvement in health care is widely accepted as crucial. Ward rounds that include patients' active participation are growing as an approach to involve patients, ensure safety, and improve quality. An emerging approach to studying quality improvement is to focus on "clinical microsystems," where patients, professionals, and information systems interact. This provides an opportunity to study ward rounds more deeply. A new model of conducting ward rounds implemented through quality improvement work was studied, using the theory of practice architectures as an analytical tool. Practice architecture focuses on the cultural-discursive, social-political, and material-economic conditions that shape what people do in their work. Practice architecture is a sociomaterial theoretical perspective that has the potential to change how we understand relationships between practice, learning, and change. In this study, we examine how changes in practices are accomplished. The results show that practice architecture formed co-productive learning rounds, a possible model integrating quality improvement in daily work. This emerged in the interplay between patients through their "double participation" (as people and as information on screens), and groups of professionals in a ward round room. However, social interplay had to be renegotiated in order to accomplish the goals of all ward rounds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Psychology 5 10%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 22 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#8,188,597
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Quality Management in Health Care
#110
of 723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,832
of 323,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality Management in Health Care
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 723 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 323,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.