Bedside interprofessional rounds: Perceptions of benefits and barriers by internal medicine nursing staff, attending physicians, and housestaff physicians

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hospital Medicine, August 2014

Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter: 10 X users
wikipedia: 1 Wikipedia page

bluesky: 1 Bluesky user

Readers on

mendeley: 102 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.

Article details
Title	Bedside interprofessional rounds: Perceptions of benefits and barriers by internal medicine nursing staff, attending physicians, and housestaff physicians
Published in	Journal of Hospital Medicine, August 2014
DOI	10.1002/jhm.2245
Pubmed ID	25130404
Authors	Jed D. Gonzalo, Ethan Kuperman, Erik Lehman, Paul Haidet
Abstract	Interprofessional collaboration improves the quality of care, but integration into workflow is challenging. Although a shared conceptualization regarding bedside interprofessional rounds may enhance implementation, little work has investigated providers' perceptions of this activity.

View on publisher site Alert me about new mentions

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline

Activity

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country	Count	As %
United States	4	40%
Saudi Arabia	1	10%
Japan	1	10%
Canada	1	10%
United Kingdom	1	10%
Unknown	2	20%

Demographic breakdown

Type
Type	Count	As %
Members of the public	5	50%
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals)	4	40%
Scientists	1	10%

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country	Count	As %
United States	2	2%
Unknown	100	98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status	Count	As %
Student > Bachelor	12	12%
Student > Master	10	10%
Researcher	10	10%
Student > Doctoral Student	7	7%
Professor > Associate Professor	7	7%
Other	20	20%
Unknown	36	35%

Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline	Count	As %
Medicine and Dentistry	24	24%
Nursing and Health Professions	23	23%
Social Sciences	3	3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology	2	2%
Arts and Humanities	1	<1%
Other	5	5%
Unknown	44	43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 June 2023.

All research outputs

#4,134,255

of 29,217,699 outputs

Outputs from Journal of Hospital Medicine

#949

of 2,753 outputs

Outputs of similar age

#36,281

of 247,534 outputs

Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hospital Medicine

#10

of 27 outputs

Altmetric has tracked 29,217,699 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.

So far Altmetric has tracked 2,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 247,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.

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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.