↓ Skip to main content

A Framework for Tracking Former Patients in the Electronic Health Record Using an Educational Registry

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
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.
Title
A Framework for Tracking Former Patients in the Electronic Health Record Using an Educational Registry
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4278-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory E. Brisson, Cynthia Barnard, Patrick D. Tyler, David M. Liebovitz, Kathy Johnson Neely

Abstract

One challenge of contemporary medical education is that shorter lengths of stay and time-limited clerkships often interrupt a student's relationship with a patient before a diagnosis is made or treatment is completed, limiting the learning experience. Medical students sometimes use electronic health records (EHRs) to overcome these limitations. EHRs provide access to patients' future medical records, enabling students to track former patients across care venues to audit their diagnostic impressions and observe outcomes. While this activity has potential to improve clinical training, there is a risk of unintended harm to patients through loss of privacy. Students need guidance on how to perform this activity appropriately. This article describes an ethical framework for tracking using an "educational registry," a list of former patients housed within the EHR that one follows longitudinally for educational purposes. Guiding principles include obtaining permission from patients, having legitimate educational intent, and restricting review of records to those essential for training. This framework could serve as a foundation for institutions seeking to develop a policy on tracking former patients, and may facilitate research on the use of EHRs to improve medical education, such as reducing diagnostic error and promoting self-directed learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 14 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 38%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,687,152
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,824
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,720
of 449,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#108
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 449,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.