↓ Skip to main content

Measurement tools and outcome measures used in transitional patient safety; a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Measurement tools and outcome measures used in transitional patient safety; a systematic review
Published in
PLoS ONE, June 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0197312
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marije A. van Melle, Henk F. van Stel, Judith M. Poldervaart, Niek J. de Wit, Dorien L. M. Zwart

Abstract

Patients are at risk for harm when treated simultaneously by healthcare providers from different healthcare organisations. To assess current practice and improvements of transitional patient safety, valid measurement tools are needed. To identify and appraise all measurement tools and outcomes that measure aspects of transitional patient safety, PubMed, Cinahl, Embase and Psychinfo were systematically searched. Two researchers performed the title and abstract and full-text selection. First, publications about validation of measurement tools were appraised for quality following COSMIN criteria. Second, we inventoried all measurement tools and outcome measures found in our search that assessed current transitional patient safety or the effect of interventions targeting transitional patient safety. The initial search yielded 8288 studies, of which 18 assessed validity of measurement tools of different aspects of transitional safety, and 191 assessed current transitional patient safety or effect of interventions. In the validated measurement tools, the overall quality of content and structural validity was acceptable; other COSMIN criteria, such as reliability, measurement error and responsiveness, were mostly poor or not reported. In our outcome inventory, the most frequently used validated outcome measure was the Care Transition Measure (n = 9). The most frequently used non-validated outcome measures were: medication discrepancies (n = 98), hospital readmissions (n = 55), adverse events (n = 34), emergency department visits (n = 33), (mental or physical) health status (n = 28), quality and timeliness of discharge summary, and patient satisfaction (n = 23). Although no validated measures exist that assess all aspects of transitional patient safety, we found validated measurement tools on specific aspects. Reporting of validity of transitional measurement tools was incomplete. Numerous outcome measures with unknown measurement properties are used in current studies on safety of care transitions, which makes interpretation or comparison of their results uncertain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Unspecified 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 13 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,412,788
of 14,644,269 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#33,751
of 151,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,806
of 273,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#710
of 2,310 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,644,269 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 151,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 273,477 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,310 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 68% of its contemporaries.