↓ Skip to main content

Does Informatics Enable or Inhibit the Delivery of Patient-centred, Coordinated, and Quality-assured Care: a Delphi Study

Overview of attention for article published in Yearbook of medical informatics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
60 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.
Article details
Title
Does Informatics Enable or Inhibit the Delivery of Patient-centred, Coordinated, and Quality-assured Care: a Delphi Study
Published in
Yearbook of medical informatics, March 2018
DOI 10.15265/iy-2015-017
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Primary care delivers patient-centred and coordinated care, which should be quality-assured. Much of family practice now routinely uses computerised medical record (CMR) systems, these systems being linked at varying levels to laboratories and other care providers. CMR systems have the potential to support care. To achieve a consensus among an international panel of health care professionals and informatics experts about the role of informatics in the delivery of patient-centred, coordinated, and quality-assured care. The consensus building exercise involved 20 individuals, five general practitioners and 15 informatics academics, members of the International Medical Informatics Association Primary Care Informatics Working Group. A thematic analysis of the literature was carried out according to the defined themes. The first round of the analysis developed 27 statements on how the CMR, or any other information system, including paper-based medical records, supports care delivery. Round 2 aimed at achieving a consensus about the statements of round one. Round 3 stated that there was an agreement on informatics principles and structures that should be put in place. However, there was a disagreement about the processes involved in the implementation, and about the clinical interaction with the systems after the implementation. The panel had a strong agreement about the core concepts and structures that should be put in place to support high quality care. However, this agreement evaporated over statements related to implementation. These findings reflect literature and personal experiences: whilst there is consensus about how informatics structures and processes support good quality care, implementation is difficult.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Computer Science 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#10,520,349
of 34,365,356 outputs
Outputs from Yearbook of medical informatics
#113
of 373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,660
of 377,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Yearbook of medical informatics
#53
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,365,356 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 377,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.