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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Incident reporting systems: a comparative study of two hospital divisions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Public Health, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13690-016-0146-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tanya Hewitt, Samia Chreim, Alan Forster |
| Abstract |
Previous studies of incident reporting in health care organizations have largely focused on single cases, and have usually attended to earlier stages of reporting. This is a comparative case study of two hospital divisions' use of an incident reporting system, and considers the different stages in the process and the factors that help shape the process. The data was comprised of 85 semi-structured interviews of health care practitioners in general internal medicine, obstetrics and neonatology; thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was undertaken. Inductive and deductive themes are reported. This work is part of a larger qualitative study found elsewhere in the literature. The findings showed that there were major differences between the two divisions in terms of: a) what comprised a typical report (outcome based vs communication and near-miss based); b) how the reports were investigated (individual manager vs interdisciplinary team); c) learning from reporting (interventions having ambiguous linkages to the reporting system vs interventions having clear linkages to reported incidents); and d) feedback (limited feedback vs multiple feedback). The differences between the two divisions can be explained in terms of: a) the influence of litigation on practice, b) the availability or lack of interprofessional training, and c) the introduction of the reporting system (top-down vs bottom-up approach). A model based on the findings portraying the influences on incident reporting and learning is provided. Implications for practice are addressed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 29% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Researcher | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 32 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 32 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,580,596
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
#722
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,459
of 356,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 356,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.