↓ Skip to main content

Editorial: Harm‐free care or harm‐free environments: expanding our definitions and understandings of safety in health care

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Nursing, October 2016
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Editorial: Harm‐free care or harm‐free environments: expanding our definitions and understandings of safety in health care
Published in
Journal of Clinical Nursing, October 2016
DOI 10.1111/jocn.13378
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In recent decades there has been no shortage of attention to the hazards and risks of healthcare. The sustained attention to prevent, or at least minimize, harm to patients has seen an international drive for 'cultures of safety' and 'harm-free care'. These approaches place emphasis on reducing harm, rather than individual blame and disciplinary measures for staff (HQ 2015, ACSQH 2015, NHS 2014), with increased attention to organisational structures, clinical competence and communication to prevent harm. While concerted effort has been given to reducing patient harm, what remains unclear is the definition of harm, what types of harm are preventable, and the scale of preventable harms. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Psychology 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#3,140,559
of 32,532,789 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#627
of 6,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,145
of 326,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#13
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,532,789 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 326,625 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.