↓ Skip to main content

Satisfaction with quality of ICU care for patients and families: the euroQ2 project

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Satisfaction with quality of ICU care for patients and families: the euroQ2 project
Published in
Critical Care, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1826-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanne Irene Jensen, Rik T. Gerritsen, Matty Koopmans, Lois Downey, Ruth A. Engelberg, J. Randall Curtis, Peter E. Spronk, Jan G. Zijlstra, Helle Ørding

Abstract

Families' perspectives are of great importance in evaluating quality of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). This Danish-Dutch study tested a European adaptation of the "Family Satisfaction in the ICU" (euroFS-ICU). The aim of the study was to examine assessments of satisfaction with care in a large cohort of Danish and Dutch family members and to examine the measurement characteristics of the euroFS-ICU. Data were from 11 Danish and 10 Dutch ICUs and included family members of patients admitted to the ICU for 48 hours or more. Surveys were mailed 3 weeks after patient discharge from the ICU. Selected patient characteristics were retrieved from hospital records. A total of 1077 family members of 920 ICU patients participated. The response rate among family members who were approached was 72%. "Excellent" or "Very good" ratings on all items ranged from 58% to 96%. Items with the highest ratings were concern toward patients, ICU atmosphere, opportunities to be present at the bedside, and ease of getting information. Items with room for improvement were management of patient agitation, emotional support of the family, consistency of information, and inclusion in and support during decision-making processes. Exploratory factor analysis suggested four underlying factors, but confirmatory factor analysis failed to yield a multi-factor model with between-country measurement invariance. A hypothesis that this failure was due to misspecification of causal indicators as reflective indicators was supported by analysis of a factor representing satisfaction with communication, measured with a combination of causal and reflective indicators. Most family members were moderately or very satisfied with patient care, family care, information and decision-making, but areas with room for improvement were also identified. Psychometric assessments suggest that composite scores constructed from these items as representations of either overall satisfaction or satisfaction with specific sub-domains do not meet rigorous measurement standards. The euroFS-ICU and other similar instruments may benefit from adding reflective indicators.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Other 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 44 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 21%
Engineering 2 2%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 49 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 22 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,748,262
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,539
of 6,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,338
of 323,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#27
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 323,721 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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 62% of its contemporaries.