ISSN: 2044-5415

Journal Home

Journal Guideline

BMJ Quality and Safety Q1 Unclaimed

BMJ Publishing Group United Kingdom

Unfortunately this journal has not been claimed yet. For this reason, some information may be unavailable.

BMJ Quality and Safety is a journal indexed in SJR in Medicine (miscellaneous) and Health Policy with an H index of 167. It has an SJR impact factor of 1,512 and it has a best quartile of Q1. It has an SJR impact factor of 1,512.

BMJ Quality and Safety focuses its scope in these topics and keywords: patient, safety, study, qualitative, randomised, validity, patients, prescribing, care, commission, ...

Type: Journal

Type of Copyright:

Languages:

Open Access Policy:

Type of publications:

Publication frecuency: -

Categories: Health Policy (Q1) Medicine (miscellaneous) (Q1)

Price

- €

Inmediate OA

NPD

Embargoed OA

- €

Non OA

Metrics

1,512

SJR Impact factor

167

H Index

122

Total Docs (Last Year)

438

Total Docs (3 years)

4734

Total Refs

1725

Total Cites (3 years)

349

Citable Docs (3 years)

3.83

Cites/Doc (2 years)

38.8

Ref/Doc

Comments

No comments ... Be the first to comment!

Publication speed *

Review quality *

Edition and editorial team *

Institutional email or ORCID *

* The email or ORCID field is only to validate the authenticity of the comment, the identity will not be public. .

Other journals with similar parameters

Nature Biomedical Engineering Q1
Journal of Thoracic Oncology Q1
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology Q1
Lancet Digital Health, The Q1
Journal of Experimental Medicine Q1

Compare this journals

Aims and Scope

Best articles by citations

Patient safety is not elective: a debate at the NPSF Patient Safety Congress

Impact of multidisciplinary team huddles on patient safety: a systematic review and proposed taxonomy

Student-observed surgical safety practices across an urban regional health authority

Assessing the patient safety competencies of healthcare professionals: a systematic review

Measuring patients' experiences and views of the emergency and urgent care system: psychometric testing of the urgent care system questionnaire

The nature and usefulness of patient experience information in producing guidance about interventional procedures

Partners in our care: patient safety from a patient perspective

Improvement leaders: what do they and should they do? A summary of a review of research

Risks and suggestions to prevent falls in geriatric rehabilitation: a participatory approach

Better use of primary care laboratory services following interventions to 'market' clinical guidelines in New Zealand: a controlled before-and-after study

Better-than-average and worse-than-average hospitals may not significantly differ from average hospitals: an analysis of Medicare Hospital Compare ratings

Economic evaluation in patient safety: a literature review of methods

SHOW MORE ARTICLES

Predictors of likelihood of speaking up about safety concerns in labour and delivery

Understanding the use and impact of the online community in a national quality improvement campaign

Towards high-reliability organising in healthcare: a strategy for building organisational capacity

Outcomes of classroom-based team training interventions for multiprofessional hospital staff. A systematic review

Patients teaching patient safety: the challenge of turning negative patient experiences into positive learning opportunities

Refocusing quality measurement to best support quality improvement: local ownership of quality measurement by clinicians: Table 1

Developing and evaluating the success of a family activated medical emergency team: a quality improvement report

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines in perioperative care: a systematic appraisal

Influenza vaccination rates for hospitalised patients: a multiyear quality improvement effort

Bottom-up implementation of disease-management programmes: results of a multisite comparison

Core competencies for patient safety research: a cornerstone for global capacity strengthening

The SQUIRE Guidelines: an evaluation from the field, 5 years post release: Table 1