↓ Skip to main content

GPs’ adherence to guidelines for structured assessments of stroke survivors in the community and care homes

Overview of attention for article published in Family Practice, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 26%
Other 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Unspecified 3 11%
Other 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Unspecified 5 19%
Computer Science 3 11%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 3 11%

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
#6,652,457
of 12,024,798 outputs
Outputs from Family Practice
#874
of 1,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,166
of 312,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Family Practice
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,024,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 312,344 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.