↓ Skip to main content

Exploring Systems That Support Good Clinical Care in Indigenous Primary Health-care Services: A Retrospective Analysis of Longitudinal Systems Assessment Tool Data from High-Improving Services

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Exploring Systems That Support Good Clinical Care in Indigenous Primary Health-care Services: A Retrospective Analysis of Longitudinal Systems Assessment Tool Data from High-Improving Services
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cindy Woods, Karen Carlisle, Sarah Larkins, Sandra Claire Thompson, Komla Tsey, Veronica Matthews, Ross Bailie

Abstract

Continuous Quality Improvement is a process for raising the quality of primary health care (PHC) across Indigenous PHC services. In addition to clinical auditing using plan, do, study, and act cycles, engaging staff in a process of reflecting on systems to support quality care is vital. The One21seventy Systems Assessment Tool (SAT) supports staff to assess systems performance in terms of five key components. This study examines quantitative and qualitative SAT data from five high-improving Indigenous PHC services in northern Australia to understand the systems used to support quality care. High-improving services selected for the study were determined by calculating quality of care indices for Indigenous health services participating in the Audit and Best Practice in Chronic Disease National Research Partnership. Services that reported continuing high improvement in quality of care delivered across two or more audit tools in three or more audits were selected for the study. Precollected SAT data (from annual team SAT meetings) are presented longitudinally using radar plots for quantitative scores for each component, and content analysis is used to describe strengths and weaknesses of performance in each systems' component. High-improving services were able to demonstrate strong processes for assessing system performance and consistent improvement in systems to support quality care across components. Key strengths in the quality support systems included adequate and orientated workforce, appropriate health system supports, and engagement with other organizations and community, while the weaknesses included lack of service infrastructure, recruitment, retention, and support for staff and additional costs. Qualitative data revealed clear voices from health service staff expressing concerns with performance, and subsequent SAT data provided evidence of changes made to address concerns. Learning from the processes and strengths of high-improving services may be useful as we work with services striving to improve the quality of care provided in other areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 20%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,954,218
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,245
of 10,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,340
of 309,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#33
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. 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 309,205 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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 63% of its contemporaries.