↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of integrated geriatric care at a German hospital: a case study to understand when and why beneficial outcomes can be achieved

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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.
Title
Implementation of integrated geriatric care at a German hospital: a case study to understand when and why beneficial outcomes can be achieved
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2105-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loraine Busetto, Jörn Kiselev, Katrien Ger Luijkx, Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen, Hubertus Johannes Maria Vrijhoef

Abstract

Many health systems have implemented integrated care as an alternative approach to health care delivery that is more appropriate for patients with complex, long-term needs. The objective of this article was to analyse the implementation of integrated care at a German geriatric hospital and explore whether the use of a "context-mechanisms-outcomes"-based model provides insights into when and why beneficial outcomes can be achieved. We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with health professionals employed at the hospital. The data were qualitatively analysed using a "context-mechanisms-outcomes"-based model. Specifically, mechanisms were defined as the different components of the integrated care intervention and categorised according to Wagner's Chronic Care Model (CCM). Context was understood as the setting in which the mechanisms are brought into practice and described by the barriers and facilitators encountered in the implementation process. These were categorised according to the six levels of Grol and Wensing's Implementation Model (IM): innovation, individual professional, patient, social context, organisational context and economic and political context. Outcomes were defined as the effects triggered by mechanisms and context, and categorised according to the six dimensions of quality of care as defined by the World Health Organization, namely effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility, patient-centeredness, equity and safety. The integrated care intervention consisted of three main components: a specific reimbursement system ("early complex geriatric rehabilitation"), multidisciplinary cooperation, and comprehensive geriatric assessments. The inflexibility of the reimbursement system regarding the obligatory number of treatment sessions contributed to over-, under- and misuse of services. Multidisciplinary cooperation was impeded by a high workload, which contributed to waste in workflows. The comprehensive geriatric assessments were complemented with information provided by family members, which contributed to decreased likelihood of adverse events. We recommend an increased focus on trying to understand how intervention components interact with context factors and, combined, lead to positive and/or negative outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Researcher 8 6%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 49 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 55 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,192,260
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,436
of 7,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,387
of 307,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#92
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 307,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.