↓ Skip to main content

Brief history of quality movement in US healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 496)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 Mendeley
Title
Brief history of quality movement in US healthcare
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12178-012-9137-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Youssra Marjoua, Kevin J. Bozic

Abstract

The current healthcare quality improvement infrastructure is a product of a century long experience of cumulative efforts. It began with an acknowledgement of the role of quality in healthcare, and gradually evolved to encompass the prioritization of quality improvement and the development of systems to monitor, quantify, and incentivize quality improvement in healthcare. We review the origins and the evolution of the US healthcare quality movement, identify existing initiatives specific to musculoskeletal care, outline significant challenges and opportunities, and propose recommendations for the future. Elements noted to be associated with successful healthcare quality improvement efforts include the presence of physician leadership, infrastructural support, and prioritization of healthcare quality within the culture of the organization. Issues that will require continued work include the development of a valid and reliable evidence base, accurate and replicable performance measurement and data collection methods, and development of a standard set of specialty specific performance metrics, with accurate provider attribution, risk adjustment and reporting mechanisms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 269 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 14%
Researcher 34 12%
Other 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 51 19%
Unknown 67 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 11%
Social Sciences 28 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 21 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Other 26 10%
Unknown 86 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 12 December 2022.
All research outputs
#898,687
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#18
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,069
of 170,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 170,033 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them