↓ Skip to main content

Changing experience of adverse medical events in the National Health Service: Comparison of two population surveys in 2001 and 2013

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, November 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Changing experience of adverse medical events in the National Health Service: Comparison of two population surveys in 2001 and 2013
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.016
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Care quality is important to patients and providers, but is hard to measure. This study aimed to examine changes in the frequency and severity of one quality measure - adverse events associated with medical care - in Great Britain over a 12-year period when available resources initially expanded and were subsequently constrained. Data on perceived adverse events, collected from two representative population surveys in 2001 and 2013, were analysed and compared. The samples consisted of 8202 adults aged 15 and over in 2001 and 19,746 adults aged 15 and over in 2013. The main outcome measures were self-reported illness, injury or impairment caused in the opinion of the respondent by medical treatment or care. Respondents were also asked about the perceived severity of harm in terms of health and work, and any actions taken in response. The proportion of all respondents reporting that over the last three years they had suffered some illness, injury or impairment that in their opinion was caused by their medical treatment or care was 2.5% (497/19746) in 2013, compared with 4.8% (391/8202) in 2001, a reduction of 33% after adjusting for age, gender, income and social class differences between the two surveys. Perceived impact on health and work of these events was similar in both surveys, as was the proportion of injured respondents who pursued a legal claim for financial compensation, at 11% (53/497) in 2013 and 10.5% (41/391) in 2001. We also report multivariate analyses of perceived harm rates and severity, and propensity to seek, and accept, compensation. Our results suggest that the NHS became significantly safer over this period when measured by patient perceived harm from medical care. Our survey method could provide a valuable contribution to the monitoring of trends in health-care related adverse events and the impact of patient safety initiatives.

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

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 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 %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 31%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 23%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 May 2025.
All research outputs
#3,430,286
of 29,353,077 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#3,305
of 12,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,902
of 347,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#57
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,353,077 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 347,347 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 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 55% of its contemporaries.