↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of the cost of data collection for performance monitoring in hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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 systematic review of the cost of data collection for performance monitoring in hospitals
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0013-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheryl Jones, Brenda Gannon, Abel Wakai, Ronan O’Sullivan

Abstract

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are used to identify where organisational performance is meeting desired standards and where performance requires improvement. Valid and reliable KPIs depend on the availability of high-quality data, specifically the relevant minimum data set ((MDS) the core data identified as the minimum required to measure performance for a KPI) elements. However, the feasibility of collecting the relevant MDS elements is always a limitation of performance monitoring using KPIs. Preferably, data should be integrated into service delivery, and, where additional data are required that are not currently collected as part of routine service delivery, there should be an economic evaluation to determine the cost of data collection. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence base concerning the costs of data collection in hospitals for performance monitoring using KPI, and to identify hospital data collection systems that have proven to be cost minimising. We searched MEDLINE (1946 to May week 4 2014), Embase (1974 to May week 2 2014), and CINAHL (1937 to date). The database searches were supplemented by searching for grey literature through the OpenGrey database. Data was extracted, tabulated, and summarised as part of a narrative synthesis. The searches yielded a total of 1,135 publications. After assessing each identified study against specific inclusion exclusion criteria only eight studies were deemed as relevant for this review. The studies attempt to evaluate different types of data collection interventions including the installation of information communication technology (ICT), improvements to current ICT systems, and how different analysis techniques may be used to monitor performance. The evaluation methods used to measure the costs and benefits of data collection interventions are inconsistent across the identified literature. Overall, the results weakly indicate that collection of hospital data and improvements in data recording can be cost-saving. Given the limitations of this systematic review, it is difficult to conclude whether improvements in data collection systems can save money, increase quality of care, and assist performance monitoring of hospitals. With that said, the results are positive and suggest that data collection improvements may lead to cost savings and aid quality of care. PROSPERO CRD42014007450 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 86 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 22%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 13 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Engineering 6 7%
Computer Science 4 5%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 12 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,729,572
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#686
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,264
of 266,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#16
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 266,083 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 65% of its contemporaries.