| Title |
Nurse Informaticians Report Low Satisfaction and Multi-level Concerns with Electronic Health Records: Results from an International Survey.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, February 2017
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maxim Topaz, Charlene Ronquillo, Laura-Maria Peltonen, Lisiane Pruinelli, Raymond Francis Sarmiento, Martha K Badger, Samira Ali, Adrienne Lewis, Mattias Georgsson, Eunjoo Jeon, Jude L Tayaben, Chiu-Hsiang Kuo, Tasneem Islam, Janine Sommer, Hyunggu Jung, Gabrielle Jacklin Eler, Dari Alhuwail, Ying-Li Lee |
| Abstract |
This study presents a qualitative content analysis of nurses' satisfaction and issues with current electronic health record (EHR) systems, as reflected in one of the largest international surveys of nursing informatics. Study participants from 45 countries (n=469) ranked their satisfaction with the current state of nursing functionality in EHRs as relatively low. Two-thirds of the participants (n=283) provided disconcerting comments when explaining their low satisfaction rankings. More than one half of the comments identified issues at the system level (e.g., poor system usability; non-integrated systems and poor interoperability; lack of standards; and limited functionality/missing components), followed by user-task issues (e.g., failure of systems to meet nursing clinical needs; non nursing-specific systems) and environment issues (e.g., low prevalence of EHRs; lack of user training). The study results call for the attention of international stakeholders (educators, managers, policy makers) to improve the current issues with EHRs from a nursing perspective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 124 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 18% |
| Unknown | 40 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 49 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,967,203
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings
#48
of 912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,915
of 427,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings
#1
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 912 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 427,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.