| Title |
The goldilocks effect: the rhythms and pace of hospital life
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-018-3350-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey Braithwaite, Louise A. Ellis, Kate Churruca, Janet C. Long |
| Abstract |
While we have made gains in understanding cultures in hospitals and their effects on outcomes of care, little work has investigated how the pace of work in hospitals is associated with staff satisfaction and patient outcomes. In an era of efficiency, as speed accelerates, this requires examination. Older studies of pace in cities found that faster lifestyles were linked to increased coronary heart disease and smoking rates, yet better subjective well-being. In this debate we propose the Goldilocks hypothesis: acute care workplaces operating at slow speeds are associated with factors such as increased wait lists, poor performance and costly care; those that are too fast risk staff exhaustion, burnout, missed care and patient dissatisfaction. We hypothesise that hospitals are best positioned by being in the Goldilocks zone, the sweet spot of optimal pace. Testing this hypothesis requires a careful study of hospitals, comparing their pace in wards and departments with measures of performance and patient outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 13 | 32% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 17% |
| Canada | 4 | 10% |
| Denmark | 3 | 7% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 46% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 29% |
| Scientists | 10 | 24% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 3% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 53% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 31 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,549,191
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#489
of 8,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,682
of 342,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#20
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,760 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 94% 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 342,132 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 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 90% of its contemporaries.