↓ Skip to main content

Computerisation and Decision Making in Neonatal Intensive Care: A Cognitive Engineering Investigation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, March 2000
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Computerisation and Decision Making in Neonatal Intensive Care: A Cognitive Engineering Investigation
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, March 2000
DOI 10.1023/a:1009954623304
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eugenio Alberdi, Ken Gilhooly, Jim Hunter, Robert Logie, Andy Lyon, Neil McIntosh, Jan Reiss

Abstract

This paper reports results from a cognitive engineering study that looked at the role of computerised monitoring in neonatal intensive care. A range of methodologies was used: interviews with neonatal staff, ward observations, and experimental techniques. The purpose was to investigate the sources of information used by clinicians when making decisions in the neonatal ICU. It was found that, although it was welcomed by staff, computerised monitoring played a secondary role in the clinicians' decision making (especially for junior and nursing staff) and that staff used the computer less often than indicated by self-reports. Factors that seemed to affect staff use of the computer were the lack (or shortage) of training on the system, the specific clinical conditions involved, and the availability of alternative sources of information. These findings have relevant repercussions for the design of computerised decision support in intensive care and suggest ways in which computerised monitoring can be enhanced, namely: by systematic staff training, by making available online certain types of clinical information, by adapting the user interface, and by developing intelligent algorithms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 6%
Netherlands 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 29 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Computer Science 6 18%
Engineering 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 September 2014.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#767
of 871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,901
of 41,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 41,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them