↓ Skip to main content

Adverse events recording in electronic health record systems in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Adverse events recording in electronic health record systems in primary care
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0565-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabine E. M. de Hoon, Karin Hek, Liset van Dijk, Robert A. Verheij

Abstract

Adequate record keeping of medication adverse events in electronic health records systems is important for patient safety. Events that remain unrecorded cannot be communicated from one health professional to another. In the absence of a gold standard, we investigate the variation between Dutch general practices in the extent to which they record medication adverse events. Data were derived from electronic health records (EHR) of Dutch general practices participating in NIVEL Primary Care Database (NIVEL-PCD) in 2014, including 308 general practices with a total practice population of 1,256,049 listed patients. Medication adverse events were defined as recorded ICPC-code A85 (adverse effect medical agent). Between practice variation was studied using multilevel logistic regression analysis corrected for age, gender, number of different medicines prescriptions and number of chronic diseases. In 2014 there were 8330 patients with at least one medication adverse event recorded. This corresponds to 6.9 medication adverse events per 1000 patients and is higher for women, elderly, patients with polypharmacy and for patients with comorbidity. Corrected for these patient characteristics the median odds ratio (MOR = 1.92) suggests an almost twofold difference between general practices in recorded medication adverse events. Our results suggest that improvement in terms of uniformity in recording medication adverse events is possible, preventing potential damage for patients. We suggest that creating a learning health system by individual practice feedback on the number of recordings of adverse events would help practitioners to improve their recording habits.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Computer Science 6 7%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 26 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,399,006
of 24,875,286 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,129
of 2,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,255
of 451,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,875,286 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. 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 451,434 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.