↓ Skip to main content

One size fits all? Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of 100% single-room accommodation on staff and patient experience, safety and costs

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Quality & Safety, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
166 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
One size fits all? Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of 100% single-room accommodation on staff and patient experience, safety and costs
Published in
BMJ Quality & Safety, September 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004265
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jill Maben, Peter Griffiths, Clarissa Penfold, Michael Simon, Janet E Anderson, Glenn Robert, Elena Pizzo, Jane Hughes, Trevor Murrells, James Barlow

Abstract

There is little strong evidence relating to the impact of single-room accommodation on healthcare quality and safety. We explore the impact of all single rooms on staff and patient experience; safety outcomes; and costs. Mixed methods pre/post 'move' comparison within four nested case study wards in a single acute hospital with 100% single rooms; quasi-experimental before-and-after study with two control hospitals; analysis of capital and operational costs associated with single rooms. Two-thirds of patients expressed a preference for single rooms with comfort and control outweighing any disadvantages (sense of isolation) felt by some. Patients appreciated privacy, confidentiality and flexibility for visitors afforded by single rooms. Staff perceived improvements (patient comfort and confidentiality), but single rooms were worse for visibility, surveillance, teamwork, monitoring and keeping patients safe. Staff walking distances increased significantly post move. A temporary increase of falls and medication errors in one ward was likely to be associated with the need to adjust work patterns rather than associated with single rooms per se. We found no evidence that single rooms reduced infection rates. Building an all single-room hospital can cost 5% more with higher housekeeping and cleaning costs but the difference is marginal over time. Staff needed to adapt their working practices significantly and felt unprepared for new ways of working with potentially significant implications for the nature of teamwork in the longer term. Staff preference remained for a mix of single rooms and bays. Patients preferred single rooms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 166 tweeters 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 97 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Master 16 16%
Unspecified 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 28 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 29%
Unspecified 22 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 22%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 18 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 106. 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 27 October 2019.
All research outputs
#154,164
of 13,754,665 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#106
of 1,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,098
of 248,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#3
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,754,665 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 248,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.