| Title |
Quality improvement in practice: improving diabetes care and patient outcomes in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-14-481 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alice Stoneman, David Atkinson, Maureen Davey, Julia V Marley |
| Abstract |
Management of chronic disease, including diabetes, is a central focus of most Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) in Australia. We have previously demonstrated that diabetes monitoring and outcomes can be improved and maintained over a 10-year period at Derby Aboriginal Health Service (DAHS). While continuous quality improvement (CQI) has been shown to improve service delivery rates and clinical outcome measures, the process of interpreting audit results and developing strategies for improvement is less well described. This paper describes the evaluation of care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and features of effective CQI in ACCHSs in the remote Kimberley region of north Western Australia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 21% |
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Psychology | 8 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,308,698
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,548
of 7,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,128
of 254,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#126
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,622 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 254,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.