↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Adaptive practices in heart failure care teams: implications for patient-centered care in the context of complexity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Adaptive practices in heart failure care teams: implications for patient-centered care in the context of complexity
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s85817
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kori LaDonna, Glendon R. Tait, Joanna Bates, Valerie Schulz, Patricia Strachan, Allan McDougall, Lorelei Lingard

Abstract

Heart failure (HF), one of the three leading causes of death, is a chronic, progressive, incurable disease. There is growing support for integration of palliative care's holistic approach to suffering, but insufficient understanding of how this would happen in the complex team context of HF care. This study examined how HF care teams, as defined by patients, work together to provide care to patients with advanced disease. Team members were identified by each participating patient, generating team sampling units (TSUs) for each patient. Drawn from five study sites in three Canadian provinces, our dataset consists of 209 interviews from 50 TSUs. Drawing on a theoretical framing of HF teams as complex adaptive systems (CAS), interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative method associated with constructivist grounded theory. This paper centers on the dominant theme of system practices, how HF care delivery is reported to work organizationally, socially, and practically, and describes two subthemes: "the way things work around here", which were commonplace, routine ways of doing things, and "the way we make things work around here", which were more conscious, effortful adaptations to usual practice in response to emergent needs. An adaptive practice, often a small alteration to routine, could have amplified effects beyond those intended by the innovating team member and could extend to other settings. Adaptive practices emerged unpredictably and were variably experienced by team members. Our study offers an empirically grounded explanation of how HF care teams self-organize and how adaptive practices emerge from nonlinear interdependencies among diverse agents. We use these insights to reframe the question of palliative care integration, to ask how best to foster palliative care-aligned adaptive practices in HF care. This work has implications for health care's growing challenge of providing care to those with chronic medical illness in complex, team-based settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Uruguay 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 54 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 14 25%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Social Sciences 7 12%
Psychology 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 11 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,953,969
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#143
of 818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,948
of 264,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 264,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.