↓ Skip to main content

One size fits all? Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of 100% single-room accommodation on staff and patient experience, safety and costs

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Quality & Safety, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
142 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 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
One size fits all? Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of 100% single-room accommodation on staff and patient experience, safety and costs
Published in
BMJ Quality & Safety, September 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004265
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jill Maben, Peter Griffiths, Clarissa Penfold, Michael Simon, Janet E Anderson, Glenn Robert, Elena Pizzo, Jane Hughes, Trevor Murrells, James Barlow

Abstract

There is little strong evidence relating to the impact of single-room accommodation on healthcare quality and safety. We explore the impact of all single rooms on staff and patient experience; safety outcomes; and costs. Mixed methods pre/post 'move' comparison within four nested case study wards in a single acute hospital with 100% single rooms; quasi-experimental before-and-after study with two control hospitals; analysis of capital and operational costs associated with single rooms. Two-thirds of patients expressed a preference for single rooms with comfort and control outweighing any disadvantages (sense of isolation) felt by some. Patients appreciated privacy, confidentiality and flexibility for visitors afforded by single rooms. Staff perceived improvements (patient comfort and confidentiality), but single rooms were worse for visibility, surveillance, teamwork, monitoring and keeping patients safe. Staff walking distances increased significantly post move. A temporary increase of falls and medication errors in one ward was likely to be associated with the need to adjust work patterns rather than associated with single rooms per se. We found no evidence that single rooms reduced infection rates. Building an all single-room hospital can cost 5% more with higher housekeeping and cleaning costs but the difference is marginal over time. Staff needed to adapt their working practices significantly and felt unprepared for new ways of working with potentially significant implications for the nature of teamwork in the longer term. Staff preference remained for a mix of single rooms and bays. Patients preferred single rooms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 142 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 197 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 16%
Student > Master 31 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 44 22%
Unknown 45 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 43 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 20%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Engineering 8 4%
Design 7 4%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 56 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 89. 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 19 May 2023.
All research outputs
#483,493
of 25,589,756 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#179
of 2,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,626
of 286,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#7
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,589,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 286,705 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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.