You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Nursing record systems: effects on nursing practice and healthcare outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002099.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christine Urquhart, Rosemary Currell, Maria J Grant, Nicholas R Hardiker |
| Abstract |
A nursing record system is the record of care that was planned or given to individual patients and clients by qualified nurses or other caregivers under the direction of a qualified nurse. Nursing record systems may be an effective way of influencing nurse practice. To assess the effects of nursing record systems on nursing practice and patient outcomes. For the original version of this review in 2000, and updates in 2003 and 2008, we searched: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register; MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI, ISI Web of Knowledge, and ASLIB Index of Theses. We also handsearched: Computers, Informatics, Nursing (Computers in Nursing); Information Technology in Nursing; and the Journal of Nursing Administration. For this update, searches can be considered complete until the end of 2007. We checked reference lists of retrieved articles and other related reviews. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series comparing one kind of nursing record system with another in hospital, community or primary care settings. The participants were qualified nurses, students or healthcare assistants working under the direction of a qualified nurse, and patients receiving care recorded or planned using nursing record systems. Two review authors (in two pairs) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We included nine trials (eight RCTs, one controlled before and after study) involving 1846 people. The studies that evaluated nursing record systems focusing on relatively discrete and focused problems, for example effective pain management in children, empowering pregnant women and parents, reducing loss of notes, reducing time spent on data entry of test results, reducing transcription errors, and reducing the number of pieces of paper in a record, all demonstrated some degree of success in achieving the desired results. Studies of nursing care planning systems and total nurse records demonstrated uncertain or equivocal results. We found some limited evidence of effects on practice attributable to changes in record systems. It is clear from the literature that it is possible to set up the randomised trials or other quasi-experimental designs needed to produce evidence for practice. Qualitative nursing research to explore the relationship between practice and information use could be used as a precursor to the design and testing of nursing information systems. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 265 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 14% |
| Researcher | 25 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 52 | 19% |
| Unknown | 91 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 77 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 4% |
| Psychology | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 7% |
| Unknown | 105 | 39% |
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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#22,835,295
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,836
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,097
of 341,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#156
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 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 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. 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 341,179 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 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.