↓ Skip to main content

Directly Observed Care: Can Unannounced Standardized Patients Address a Gap in Performance Measurement?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Directly Observed Care: Can Unannounced Standardized Patients Address a Gap in Performance Measurement?
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11606-014-2860-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saul J. Weiner, Alan Schwartz

Abstract

There are three potential sources of information for evaluating a clinician's performance: documentation, patient report, and directly observed care. Current measures draw on just two of these: data recorded in the medical record and surveys of patients. Neither captures an array of performance characteristics, including clinician attention to symptoms and signs while taking a history or conducting a physical exam, accurate recording in the medical record of information obtained during the encounter, evidence based communication strategies for preventive care counseling, and effective communication behavior. Unannounced Standardized Patients (USPs) have been widely deployed as a research strategy for systematically uncovering significant performance deficits in each of these areas, but have not been adopted for quality improvement. Likely obstacles include concerns about the ethics of sending health professionals sham patients, the technical challenges of the subterfuge, and concerns about the relatively small sample sizes and substantial costs involved. However, the high frequency of significant and remediable performance deficits unmasked by USPs, and the potential to adapt registration and record keeping systems to accommodate their visits, suggest that their selective and purposeful deployment could be a cost effective and powerful strategy for addressing a gap in performance measurement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 15%
Unknown 34 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Master 7 18%
Unspecified 4 10%
Librarian 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Unspecified 4 10%
Psychology 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 10 25%
Unknown 2 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 04 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,955,958
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,519
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,028
of 230,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#10
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 230,414 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.