↓ Skip to main content

Are frail elderly patients treated in a CGA unit more satisfied with their hospital care than those treated in conventional acute medical care?

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2018
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Are frail elderly patients treated in a CGA unit more satisfied with their hospital care than those treated in conventional acute medical care?
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s154658
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niklas Ekerstad, Göran Östberg, Maria Johansson, Björn W Karlson

Abstract

Our aim was to study whether the acute care of frail elderly patients directly admitted to a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) unit is superior to the care in a conventional acute medical care unit in terms of patient satisfaction. TREEE (Is the TReatment of frail Elderly patients Effective in an Elderly care unit?) is a clinical, prospective, controlled, one-center intervention trial comparing acute treatment in CGA units and in conventional wards. This study was conducted in the NÄL-Uddevalla county hospital in western Sweden. In this follow-up to the TREEE study, 229 frail patients, aged ≥75 years, in need of acute in-hospital treatment, were eligible. Of these patients, 139 patients were included in the analysis, 72 allocated to the CGA unit group and 67 to the conventional care group. Mean age was 85 years and 65% were female. Direct admittance to an acute elderly care unit with structured, systematic interdisciplinary CGA-based care, compared to conventional acute medical care via the emergency room. The primary outcome was the satisfaction reported by the patients shortly after discharge from hospital. A four-item confidential questionnaire was used. Responses were given on a 4-graded scale. The response rate was 61%. In unadjusted analyses, significantly more patients in the intervention group responded positively to the following three questions about the hospitalization: "Did you get the nursing from the ward staff that you needed?" (p=0.003), "Are you satisfied with the information you received on your diseases and medication?" (p=0.016), and "Are you satisfied with the planning before discharge from the hospital?" (p=0.032). After adjusted analyses by multiple regression, a significant difference in favor of the intervention remained for the first question (p=0.027). Acute care in a CGA unit with direct admission was associated with higher levels of patient satisfaction compared with conventional acute care via the emergency room.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Other 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Psychology 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,843,859
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#135
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,506
of 451,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#2
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 451,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.