↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Focused Ethnography of Diagnosis in Academic Medical Centers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hospital Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
110 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Focused Ethnography of Diagnosis in Academic Medical Centers
Published in
Journal of Hospital Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.12788/jhm.2966
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vineet Chopra, Molly Harrod, Suzanne Winter, Jane Forman, Martha Quinn, Sarah Krein, Karen E. Fowler, Hardeep Singh, Sanjay Saint

Abstract

Approaches of trainees to diagnosis in teaching hospitals are poorly understood. Identifying cognitive and system-based barriers and facilitators to diagnosis may improve diagnosis in these settings. We conducted a focused ethnography of trainees at 2 academic medical centers to understand the barriers and facilitators to diagnosis. Field notes regarding the diagnostic process (eg, information gathering, integration and interpretation, working diagnosis) and the work system (eg, team members, organization, technology and tools, physical environment, tasks) were recorded. Following observations, focus groups and interviews were conducted to understand the viewpoints, problems, and solutions to improve diagnosis. Between January 2016 and May 2016, 4 teaching teams (4 attendings, 4 senior residents, 9 interns, and 12 medical students) were observed for 168 h. Observations of diagnosis during care led to identification of the following 4 key themes: (a) diagnosis is a social phenomenon; (b) data necessary to make diagnoses are fragmented; (c) distractions interfere with the diagnostic process; and (d) time pressures impede diagnostic decision-making. These themes suggest that specific interventions tailored to the academic setting such as team-based discussions of diagnostic workups, scheduling diagnostic time-outs during the day, and strategies to "protect" learners from interruptions might prove to be useful in improving the process of diagnosis. Future studies that implement these ideas (either alone or within a multimodal intervention) appear to be necessary. Diagnosis in teaching hospitals is a unique process that requires improvement. Contextual insights gained from this ethnography may be used to inform future interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 110 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 12%
Other 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 21%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Psychology 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#616,174
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hospital Medicine
#121
of 2,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,627
of 340,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hospital Medicine
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. 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 340,710 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.