↓ Skip to main content

SEND: a system for electronic notification and documentation of vital sign observations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
SEND: a system for electronic notification and documentation of vital sign observations
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0186-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Wong, Timothy Bonnici, Julia Knight, Lauren Morgan, Paul Coombes, Peter Watkinson

Abstract

Recognising the limitations of a paper-based approach to documenting vital sign observations and responding to national clinical guidelines, we have explored the use of an electronic solution that could improve the quality and safety of patient care. We have developed a system for recording vital sign observations at the bedside, automatically calculating an Early Warning Score, and saving data such that it is accessible to all relevant clinicians within a hospital trust. We have studied current clinical practice of using paper observation charts, and attempted to streamline the process. We describe our user-focussed design process, and present the key design decisions prior to describing the system in greater detail. The system has been deployed in three pilot clinical areas over a period of 9 months. During this time, vital sign observations were recorded electronically using our system. Analysis of the number of observations recorded (21,316 observations) and the number of active users (111 users) confirmed that the system is being used for routine clinical observations. Feedback from clinical end-users was collected to assess user acceptance of the system. This resulted in a System Usability Scale score of 77.8, indicating high user acceptability. Our system has been successfully piloted, and is in the process of full implementation throughout adult inpatient clinical areas in the Oxford University Hospitals. Whilst our results demonstrate qualitative acceptance of the system, its quantitative effect on clinical care is yet to be evaluated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 21%
Student > Master 14 15%
Other 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Computer Science 11 12%
Engineering 9 10%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 18 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,464,917
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#763
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,202
of 264,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#13
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 264,395 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 57% of its contemporaries.