| Title |
Security Techniques for the Electronic Health Records
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-017-0778-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clemens Scott Kruse, Brenna Smith, Hannah Vanderlinden, Alexandra Nealand |
| Abstract |
The privacy of patients and the security of their information is the most imperative barrier to entry when considering the adoption of electronic health records in the healthcare industry. Considering current legal regulations, this review seeks to analyze and discuss prominent security techniques for healthcare organizations seeking to adopt a secure electronic health records system. Additionally, the researchers sought to establish a foundation for further research for security in the healthcare industry. The researchers utilized the Texas State University Library to gain access to three online databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source. These sources were used to conduct searches on literature concerning security of electronic health records containing several inclusion and exclusion criteria. Researchers collected and analyzed 25 journals and reviews discussing security of electronic health records, 20 of which mentioned specific security methods and techniques. The most frequently mentioned security measures and techniques are categorized into three themes: administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. The sensitive nature of the information contained within electronic health records has prompted the need for advanced security techniques that are able to put these worries at ease. It is imperative for security techniques to cover the vast threats that are present across the three pillars of healthcare. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 565 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 565 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 75 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 59 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 6% |
| Researcher | 28 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 3% |
| Other | 70 | 12% |
| Unknown | 281 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 74 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 60 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 7% |
| Engineering | 20 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 2% |
| Other | 66 | 12% |
| Unknown | 291 | 52% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 107. 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 01 May 2023.
All research outputs
#377,988
of 24,701,594 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#8
of 1,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,229
of 319,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,701,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 319,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.