↓ Skip to main content

Hospital board oversight of quality and safety: a stakeholder analysis exploring the role of trust and intelligence

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Hospital board oversight of quality and safety: a stakeholder analysis exploring the role of trust and intelligence
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0771-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ross Millar, Tim Freeman, Russell Mannion

Abstract

Hospital boards, those executive members charged with developing appropriate organisational strategies and cultures, have an important role to play in safeguarding the care provided by their organisation. However, recent concerns have been raised over boards' ability to enact their duty to ensure the quality and safety of care. This paper offers critical reflection on the relationship between hospital board oversight and patient safety. In doing so it highlights new perspectives and suggestions for developing this area of study. The article draws on 10 interviews with key informants and policy actors who form part of the 'issue network' interested in the promotion of patient safety in the English National Health Service. The interviews surfaced a series of narratives regarding hospital board oversight of patient safety. These elaborated on the role of trust and intelligence in highlighting the potential dangers and limitations of approaches to hospital board oversight which have been narrowly focused on a risk-based view of organisational performance. In response, a need to engage with the development of trust based organisational relationships is identified, in which effective board oversight is built on 'trust' characterised by styles of leadership and behaviours that are attentive to the needs and concerns of both staff and patients. Effective board oversight also requires the gathering and triangulating of 'intelligence' generated from both national and local information sources. We call for a re-imagination of hospital board oversight in the light of these different perspectives and articulate an emerging research agenda in this area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 10%
Psychology 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,720,444
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,206
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,069
of 241,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#70
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 241,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.