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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
GPs’ adherence to guidelines for structured assessments of stroke survivors in the community and care homes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Family Practice, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1093/fampra/cmv074 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley, Anne-Marie Boylan, Constantinos Koshiaris, Maria Vazquez Montes, Gary A Ford, Daniel S Lasserson |
| Abstract |
Clinical practice guidelines recommend that stroke survivors' needs be assessed at regular intervals after stroke. The extent to which GPs comply with national guidance particularly for patients in care homes who have greatest clinical complexity is unknown. This study aimed to establish the current clinical practice in the UK of needs assessment by GPs for stroke survivors after hospital discharge for acute stroke. Cross-sectional online survey of current practice of GPs, using the national doctors.net network. The survey was completed by 300 GPs who had on average been working for 14 years. The structured assessment of stroke survivors' needs was not offered by 31% of GPs, with no significant difference for level of provision in community or care home settings. The outputs of reviews were added to patients' notes by 89% of GPs and used to change management by 57%. Only half the GPs reported integrating the information obtained into care plans and only a quarter of GPs had a protocol for follow-up of identified needs. Analysis of free-text comments indicated that patients in some care homes may receive more regular and structured reviews. This survey suggests that at least one-third of GPs provide no formal review of the needs of stroke patients and that in only a minority are identified needs addressed in a structured way. Standardization is required for what is included in reviews and how needs are being identified and met. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,757,128
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Family Practice
#1,442
of 2,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,106
of 274,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Family Practice
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 274,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.