| Title |
Guidelines for overcoming hospital managerial challenges: a systematic literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s54178 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Crema, Chiara Verbano |
| Abstract |
The need to respond to accreditation institutes' and patients' requirements and to align health care results with increased medical knowledge is focusing greater attention on quality in health care. Different tools and techniques have been adopted to measure and manage quality, but clinical errors are still too numerous, suggesting that traditional quality improvement systems are unable to deal appropriately with hospital challenges. The purpose of this paper is to grasp the current tools, practices, and guidelines adopted in health care to improve quality and patient safety and create a base for future research on this young subject. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 130 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 46 | 34% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 32 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 26 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 16% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 17 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 39 | 29% |
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 31 October 2013.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#810
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,241
of 219,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. 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 219,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.