↓ Skip to main content

Operational failures and how they influence the work of GPs: a qualitative study in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, September 2020
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
52 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Operational failures and how they influence the work of GPs: a qualitative study in primary care
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, September 2020
DOI 10.3399/bjgp20x713009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carol Sinnott, Alexandros Georgiadis, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract

Operational failures, defined as inadequacies or errors in the information, supplies, or equipment needed for patient care, are known to be highly consequential in hospital environments. Despite their likely relevance for GPs' experiences of work, they remain under-explored in primary care. To identify operational failures in the primary care work environment and to examine how they influence GPs' work. Qualitative interview study in the East of England. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 21). Data analysis was based on the constant comparison method. GPs reported a large burden of operational failures, many of them related to information transfer with external healthcare providers, practice technology, and organisation of work within practices. Faced with operational failures, GPs undertook 'compensatory labour' to fulfil their duties of coordinating and safeguarding patients' care. Dealing with operational failures imposed significant additional strain in the context of already stretched daily schedules, but this work remained largely invisible. In part, this was because GPs acted to fix problems in the here-and-now rather than referring them to source, and they characteristically did not report operational failures at system level. They also identified challenges in making process improvements at practice level, including medicolegal uncertainties about delegation. Operational failures in primary care matter for GPs and their experience of work. Compensatory labour is burdensome with an unintended consequence of rendering these failures largely invisible. Recognition of the significance of operational failures should stimulate efforts to make the primary care work environment more attractive.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 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 > Master 7 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Librarian 1 3%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 12 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 35%
Engineering 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 07 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,138,289
of 24,464,848 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#537
of 4,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,668
of 414,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#16
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,464,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 414,035 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.