↓ Skip to main content

‘You can’t just hit a button’: an ethnographic study of strategies to repurpose data from advanced clinical information systems for clinical process improvement

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
‘You can’t just hit a button’: an ethnographic study of strategies to repurpose data from advanced clinical information systems for clinical process improvement
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cecily Morrison, Matthew Jones, Rachel Jones, Alain Vuylsteke

Abstract

Current policies encourage healthcare institutions to acquire clinical information systems (CIS) so that captured data can be used for secondary purposes, including clinical process improvement. Such policies do not account for the extra work required to repurpose data for uses other than direct clinical care, making their implementation problematic. This paper aims to analyze the strategies employed by clinical units to use data effectively for both direct clinical care and clinical process improvement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 6%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 30 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 9 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Computer Science 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 5 15%

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 15 April 2013.
All research outputs
#7,548,040
of 12,517,134 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,763
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,168
of 144,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#20
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,517,134 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 144,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.