IJHCQA author and reader data

Citation

Hurst, K. (2007), "IJHCQA author and reader data", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 20 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhcqa.2007.06220eaa.001

IJHCQA author and reader data

One of the pleasures working with my Emerald colleagues is their willingness to examine journal outputs and outcomes as a means of improving “customer service”. In short, IJHCQA practice what they preach! For example, I prepared a report for an editorial meeting with editors and publishers connected to our sister publication – Clinical Governance: An International Journal (CGIJ). That is, I content analysed publications in both journals over the past ten years, in part to get a sense of publication trends. A broader analysis of 160 IJHCQA substantive articles published during the decade, however, generates fascinating and useful insights into healthcare quality assurance hot-topics. Table I shows, in rank order, what authors’ efforts included.

Table I Authors’ efforts by topic and rank

Readers and writers wishing to follow-up this analysis can e-mail me for a breakdown, which includes data sources in the form of volume and issue numbers. Alternatively, Emerald’s web site’s search engine (www.emeraldinsight.com) will look for subjects by keyword.

Readers thinking about writing for IJHCQA may be surprised by the list. However, most less-featured topics are explained by CGIJ, which attracts specific topics such as clinical audit (not included in the table above – forming 8 per cent of CGIJ’s output) and clinical governance (14 per cent). More importantly, IJHCQA’s ranking shows our writers’ interests – an indirect QA research and development measure.

What topics, on the other hand, interest our readers? Vicky Williams, Helen Terrington and their Emerald colleagues produced a fascinating analysis of the most popular IJHCQA “downloads”. My academic life means that I’m a heavy user of electronic databases and I shouldn’t be surprised, therefore, at any literature database’s utility. Even so, an incredible 81,200 IJHCQA articles were downloaded in 2006 (double the previous year’s) – most recently up to 10,000 a month. The UK tops the country league table (38 per cent) followed by the Far East (16 per cent); North America (12 per cent); Australasia (10 per cent) and Western Europe (8 per cent). The most popular download (broad) topics included:

• •

  Patient satisfaction.

• •

  Performance measurement, especially the Balanced Score Card.

• •

  Workforce planning and development, e.g. job satisfaction and care quality.

• •

  Hospital management and leadership, e.g. implementing TQM and CQI.

• •

  Clinical governance.

• •

  QA models such as EFQM; ISO9001 and Six Sigma.

• •

  QA education and training.

• •

  Public versus private healthcare.

• •

  IM&T’s QA role.

Clearly, there are patterns between what’s written and what’s read (although, strictly speaking, we should add library searches and subscription data to these analyses). Consequently, my colleagues and I agreed to produce at least three special issues in the next two years: patient satisfaction; patient safety; and managed care. The first two, based on publication and usage topics, are likely to be popular. The latter’s importance, we sense, is growing in worldwide healthcare. On reflection, performance measurement needs adding to our special issue list. In short, we’re predicting what might top IJHCQA’s 2008-2009 league tables.

Finally, and most important, our writers, readers and reviewers deserve recognition and thanks for their interest and contributions. The Journal’s performance data are testament to their faith and services.

Keith Hurst