↓ Skip to main content

Factors influencing the quality of vital sign data in electronic health records: A qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Nursing, January 2018
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors influencing the quality of vital sign data in electronic health records: A qualitative study
Published in
Journal of Clinical Nursing, January 2018
DOI 10.1111/jocn.14174
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean E Stevenson, Johan Israelsson, Goran Petersson, Peter A Bath

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate reasons for inadequate documentation of vital signs in an electronic health record. Monitoring vital signs is crucial to detecting and responding to patient deterioration. The ways in which vital signs are documented in electronic health records have received limited attention in the research literature. A previous study revealed that vital signs in an electronic health record were incomplete and inconsistent. Qualitative study. Qualitative study. Data were collected by observing (68 hours) and interviewing nurses (n=11) and doctors (n=3), and analysed by thematic analysis to examine processes for measuring, documenting and retrieving vital signs in four clinical settings in a 353-bed hospital. We identified two central reasons for inadequate vital sign documentation. First, there was an absence of firm guidelines for observing patients' vital signs, resulting in inconsistencies in the ways vital signs were recorded. Second, there was a lack of adequate facilities in the electronic health record for recording vital signs. This led to poor presentation of vital signs in the electronic health record and to staff creating paper 'workarounds'. This study demonstrated inadequate routines and poor facilities for vital sign documentation in an electronic health record, and makes an important contribution to knowledge by identifying problems and barriers that may occur. Further, it has demonstrated the need for improved facilities for electronic documentation of vital signs. patient safety may have been compromised because of poor presentation of vital signs. Thus, our results emphasised the need for standardised routines for monitoring patients. In addition, designers should consult the clinical end-users in order to optimise facilities for electronic documentation of vital signs. This could have a positive impact on clinical practice and thus improve patient safety. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 41 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 19%
Computer Science 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 44 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,146,066
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#779
of 5,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,818
of 452,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#47
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 452,454 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.