↓ Skip to main content

Implementing evidence‐based practices in an emergency department: contradictions exposed when prioritising a flow culture

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Nursing, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Implementing evidence‐based practices in an emergency department: contradictions exposed when prioritising a flow culture
Published in
Journal of Clinical Nursing, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/jocn.13092
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeanette W Kirk, Per Nilsen

Abstract

An emergency department is typically a place of high activity where practitioners care for unanticipated presentations, which yields a flow culture so that actions that secure available beds are prioritised by the practitioners. How does the flow culture in an emergency department influence nurses' use of a research-based clinical guideline and a nutrition screening routine. Ethnographic fieldwork was carried out over three months. The first author followed nurses, medical secretaries and doctors in the emergency department. Data were also collected by means of semi-structured interviews. An activity system analysis, as described in the Cultural Historical Activity Theory, was conducted to identify various contradictions that could exist between different parts of the activity system. The main contradiction identified was that guidelines and screening routines provided a flow stop. Four associated contradictions were identified: insufficient time to implement guidelines; guilty conscience due to perceived nonadherence to evidence-based practices; newcomers having different priorities; and conflicting views of what constituted being a professional. We found that research-supported guidelines and screening routines were not used if they were perceived to stop the patient flow, suggesting that the practice was not fully evidence based.

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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Librarian 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 34 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 9%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Psychology 4 3%
Linguistics 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 46 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,020,600
of 24,185,663 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#3,100
of 5,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,760
of 405,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#48
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,185,663 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 405,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.