↓ Skip to main content

Implementing electronic patient record systems (EPRs) into England’s acute, mental health and community care trusts: a mixed methods study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Implementing electronic patient record systems (EPRs) into England’s acute, mental health and community care trusts: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0204-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arabella Clarke, Joy Adamson, Laura Sheard, Paul Cairns, Ian Watt, John Wright

Abstract

Our aim was to explore the approaches to and the challenges and benefits of implementing Electronic Patient Record systems (EPRs) into NHS acute, mental health and community care hospitals throughout England. A mixed methods approach was adopted that comprised an online survey (n = 59) and semi-structured telephone interviews (n = 8) with chief information officers (or heads of EPR projects) at NHS trusts throughout England. Survey analysis was descriptive, whilst the qualitative interviews were analysed thematically. A range of devices and approaches to implementing EPRs were described with 32 % of survey respondents utilising a best of breed approach. Interviewees' perceived and expected benefits of implementing an EPR included efficiency, availability and accessibility of clinical information, and patient safety. Key challenges to EPR implementation were securing clinician involvement, difficulties posed by government and national policy and limited availability of financial and human resources. There was no single approach regarding the approaches taken to implementing EPRs among participating English NHS trusts, with various benefits and challenges cited. Policymakers and researchers need to provide clearer guidance for trusts at various stages of implementation ensuring intelligence is shared across England's NHS trusts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 33 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 19 13%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Computer Science 9 6%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 34 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 October 2022.
All research outputs
#6,116,432
of 24,089,177 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#533
of 2,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,594
of 283,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#12
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,089,177 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,056 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 283,723 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 69% of its contemporaries.