↓ Skip to main content

University of Newcastle, Australia

Bayesian methods in reporting and managing Australian clinical indicators.

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Clinical Cases, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Bayesian methods in reporting and managing Australian clinical indicators.
Published in
World Journal of Clinical Cases, January 2015
DOI 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i7.625
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter P Howley, Stephen J Hancock, Robert W Gibberd, Sheuwen Chuang, Frank A Tuyl

Abstract

Sustained clinical improvement is unlikely without appropriate measuring and reporting techniques. Clinical indicators are tools to help assess whether a standard of care is being met. They are used to evaluate the potential to improve the care provided by healthcare organisations (HCOs). The analysis and reporting of these indicators for the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards have used a methodology which estimates, for each of the 338 clinical indicators, the gains in the system that would result from shifting the mean proportion to the 20(th) centile. The results are used to provide a relative measure to help prioritise quality improvement activity within clinical areas, rather than simply focus on "poorer performing" HCOs. The method draws attention to clinical areas exhibiting larger between-HCO variation and affecting larger numbers of patients. HCOs report data in six-month periods, resulting in estimated clinical indicator proportions which may be affected by small samples and sampling variation. Failing to address such issues would result in HCOs exhibiting extremely small and large estimated proportions and inflated estimates of the potential gains in the system. This paper describes the 20(th) centile method of calculating potential gains for the healthcare system by using Bayesian hierarchical models and shrinkage estimators to correct for the effects of sampling variation, and provides an example case in Emergency Medicine as well as example expert commentary from colleges based upon the reports. The application of these Bayesian methods enables all collated data to be used, irrespective of an HCO's size, and facilitates more realistic estimates of potential system gains.

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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 14%
Unknown 6 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 14%
Librarian 1 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Unspecified 1 14%
Social Sciences 1 14%
Environmental Science 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,366,818
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Clinical Cases
#470
of 1,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,146
of 353,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Clinical Cases
#35
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,439 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 353,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.