↓ Skip to main content

The Ethical Imperative to Move to a Seven-Day Care Model

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
The Ethical Imperative to Move to a Seven-Day Care Model
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11673-016-9708-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Bell, Fiona McDonald, Tania Hobson

Abstract

Whilst the nature of human illness is not determined by time of day or day of week, we currently structure health service delivery around a five-day delivery model. At least one country is endeavouring to develop a systems-based approach to planning a transition from five- to seven-day healthcare delivery models, and some services are independently instituting program reorganization to achieve these ends as research, amongst other things, highlights increased mortality and morbidity for weekend and after-hours admissions to hospitals. In this article, we argue that this issue does not merely raise instrumental concerns but also opens up a normative ethical dimension, recognizing that clinical ethical dilemmas are impacted on and created by systems of care. Using health policy ethics, we critically examine whether our health services, as currently structured, are at odds with ethical obligations for patient care and broader collective goals associated with the provision of publicly funded health services. We conclude by arguing that a critical health policy ethics perspective applying relevant ethical values and principles needs to be included when considering whether and how to transition from five-day to seven-day models for health delivery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Lecturer 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Computer Science 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 7 37%
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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,843,597
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#417
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,718
of 297,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 297,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.