↓ 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 (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
165 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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 165 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 130 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 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 18%
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 33 25%
Unknown 20 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 24%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Engineering 7 5%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 26 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. 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
#207,002
of 16,031,926 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#120
of 1,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,440
of 251,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#4
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,031,926 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 1,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. 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 251,458 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 well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.