Search

Your search keyword '"Hogden, Anne"' showing total 10 results
Start Over Author "Hogden, Anne" Journal bmj open
10 results on '"Hogden, Anne"'

3. Developing a web-based patient decision aid for gastrostomy in motor neuron disease: a study protocol

Author

Maunsell, Rose, primary, Bloomfield, Suzanne, additional, Erridge, Clare, additional, Foster, Claire, additional, Hardcastle, Maggi, additional, Hogden, Anne, additional, Kidd, Alison, additional, Lisiecka, Dominika, additional, McDermott, Christopher J, additional, Morrison, Karen, additional, Recio-Saucedo, Alejandra, additional, Rickenbach, Louise, additional, White, Sean, additional, Williams, Peter, additional, and Wheelwright, Sally J, additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): a framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models

Author

Braithwaite, Jeffrey, primary, Herkes, Jessica, additional, Churruca, Kate, additional, Long, Janet C, additional, Pomare, Chiara, additional, Boyling, Claire, additional, Bierbaum, Mia, additional, Clay-Williams, Robyn, additional, Rapport, Frances, additional, Shih, Patti, additional, Hogden, Anne, additional, Ellis, Louise A, additional, Ludlow, Kristiana, additional, Austin, Elizabeth, additional, Seah, Rebecca, additional, McPherson, Elise, additional, Hibbert, Peter D, additional, and Westbrook, Johanna, additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. Disentangling quality and safety indicator data: a longitudinal, comparative study of hand hygiene compliance and accreditation outcomes in 96 Australian hospitals.

Author

Mumford, Virginia, Greenfield, David, Hogden, Anne, Debono, Deborah, Gospodarevskaya, Elena, Forde, Kevin, Westbrook, Johanna, and Braithwaite, Jeffrey

Abstract

Objectives: The study aims are twofold. First, to investigate the suitability of hand hygiene as an indicator of accreditation outcomes and, second, to test the hypothesis that hospitals with better accreditation outcomes achieve higher hand hygiene compliance rates. Design: A retrospective, longitudinal, multisite comparative survey. Setting: Acute public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Participants: 96 acute hospitals with accreditation survey results from two surveys during 2009-2012 and submitted data for more than four hand hygiene audits between 2010 and 2013. Outcomes: Our primary outcome comprised observational hand hygiene compliance data from eight audits during 2010-2013. The explanatory variables in our multilevel regression model included: accreditation outcomes and scores for the infection control standard; timing of the surveys; and hospital size and activity. Results: Average hand hygiene compliance rates increased from 67.7% to 80.3% during the study period (2010-2013), with 46.7% of hospitals achieving target compliance rates of 70% in audit 1, versus 92.3% in audit 8. Average hand hygiene rates at small hospitals were 7.8 percentage points (pp) higher than those at the largest hospitals ( p<0.05). The association between hand hygiene rates, accreditation outcomes and infection control scores is less clear. Conclusions: Our results indicate that accreditation outcomes and hand hygiene audit data are measuring different parts of the quality and safety spectrum. Understanding what is being measured when selecting indicators to assess the impact of accreditation is critical as focusing on accreditation results would discount successful hand hygiene implementation by smaller hospitals. Conversely, relying on hand hygiene results would discount the infection control related research and leadership investment by larger hospitals. Our hypothesis appears to be confounded by an accreditation programme that makes it more difficult for smaller hospitals to achieve high infection control scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): a framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models

Author

Kate Churruca, Anne Hogden, Elise McPherson, Mia Bierbaum, Louise A. Ellis, Janet C. Long, Johanna I. Westbrook, Chiara Pomare, Kristiana Ludlow, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Frances Rapport, Robyn Clay-Williams, Jessica Herkes, Peter Hibbert, Elizabeth Austin, Patti Shih, Rebecca Seah, Claire Boyling, Braithwaite, Jeffrey, Herkes, Jessica, Churruca, Kate, Long, Janet C, Pomare, Chiara, Boyling, Claire, Bierbaum, Mia, Clay-Williams, Robyn, Rapport, Frances, Shih, Patti, Hogden, Anne, Ellis, Louise A, Ludlow, Kristiana, Austin, Elizabeth, Seah, Rebecca, Mcpherson, Elise, Hibbert, Peter D, and Westbrook, Johanna

Subjects
researcher assessment, Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), media_common.quotation_subject, Citation index, Judgement, Applied psychology, MEDLINE, 050905 science studies, outputs, Promotion (rank), Research Methods, Humans, Medicine, h-index, Statistic, media_common, Models, Statistical, Impact factor, business.industry, Research, 05 social sciences, General Medicine, Research Personnel, research metrics, journal impact factor, Benchmarking, citations, Systematic review, Data extraction, Periodicals as Topic, 0509 other social sciences, 050904 information & library sciences, business, Algorithms, Program Evaluation
Abstract

ObjectivesEffective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model.DesignWe systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework.Data sourcesAll Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017.Eligibility criteria(1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007–2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher’s achievements.Data extraction and synthesisArticles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848–0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed.ResultsFour hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or ‘altmetric’ data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others.ConclusionsAll metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications.

Published
2019

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results