| Title |
Use of patient flow analysis to improve patient visit efficiency by decreasing wait time in a primary care-based disease management programs for anticoagulation and chronic pain: a quality improvement study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, January 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-7-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas M Potisek, Robb M Malone, Betsy Bryant Shilliday, Timothy J Ives, Paul R Chelminski, Darren A DeWalt, Michael P Pignone |
| Abstract |
Patients with chronic conditions require frequent care visits. Problems can arise during several parts of the patient visit that decrease efficiency, making it difficult to effectively care for high volumes of patients. The purpose of the study is to test a method to improve patient visit efficiency. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 26% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#12,605,103
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,076
of 7,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,836
of 173,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#45
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 173,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.