| Title |
Oh, the Places We’ll Go: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Electronic Health Records
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40271-018-0321-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah G. Gensheimer, Albert W. Wu, Claire F. Snyder, PRO-EHR Users’ Guide Steering Group, PRO-EHR Users’ Guide Working Group |
| Abstract |
The growing measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) presents an unprecedented opportunity to improve health care for patients and populations. The integration of PROs into EHRs can promote patient-centered care and advance quality improvement initiatives, research, and population health. Despite these potential benefits, there are few best practices to help organizations achieve integration. To integrate PROs into EHRs, organizations should evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches within three themes: Planning, Selection, and Engagement. Planning considerations for integration include what strategy will be used, how the integrated system will be governed, ethical and legal issues, and how data from multiple EHRs can be pooled across organizations. Selection considerations involve identifying which patient population to target for PRO data collection on the basis of the intended use of the data in the health care system, and then choosing specific outcomes and their measures. Engagement considerations include how, where, and with what frequency patients will respond to PRO measures, how to display PRO data in EHRs, how clinical teams will act upon PRO data, and how to train, support and incent clinical teams and patients to incorporate PRO data into care. There is no most effective model that will work in all contexts. Organizations wishing to integrate PROs and EHRs should assemble the multidisciplinary expertise needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches for their particular context. We specifically recommend that organizations think carefully about stakeholder participation; design their system with data sharing in mind; develop a framework to aid in PRO selection; create guidelines to support PRO interpretation and action for patients and clinicians; and ensure patients have access to their own PRO data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 5 | 50% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 118 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 48 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 56 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 28 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,331,952
of 24,932,492 outputs
Outputs from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#57
of 566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,452
of 333,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,932,492 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 333,976 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.