| Title |
Enterprise Imaging Governance: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-016-9883-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher J. Roth, Louis M. Lannum, Carol L. Joseph |
| Abstract |
Enterprise imaging governance is an emerging need in health enterprises today. This white paper highlights the decision-making body, framework, and process for optimal enterprise imaging governance inclusive of five areas of focus: program governance, technology governance, information governance, clinical governance, and financial governance. It outlines relevant parallels and differences when forming or optimizing imaging governance as compared with other established broad horizontal governance groups, such as for the electronic health record. It is intended for CMIOs and health informatics leaders looking to grow and govern a program to optimally capture, store, index, distribute, view, exchange, and analyze the images of their enterprise. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 | 8 | 47% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Brazil | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 59% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
| Scientists | 2 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 18% |
| Lecturer | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Engineering | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 10 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,280,592
of 24,991,957 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#14
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,027
of 360,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,991,957 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 360,657 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.