↓ Skip to main content

How to successfully select and implement electronic health records (EHR) in small ambulatory practice settings

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
420 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
How to successfully select and implement electronic health records (EHR) in small ambulatory practice settings
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2009
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-9-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy M Lorenzi, Angelina Kouroubali, Don E Detmer, Meryl Bloomrosen

Abstract

Adoption of EHRs by U.S. ambulatory practices has been slow despite the perceived benefits of their use. Most evaluations of EHR implementations in the literature apply to large practice settings. While there are similarities relating to EHR implementation in large and small practice settings, the authors argue that scale is an important differentiator. Focusing on small ambulatory practices, this paper outlines the benefits and barriers to EHR use in this setting, and provides a "field guide" for these practices to facilitate successful EHR implementation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 420 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 2%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Saudi Arabia 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 398 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 105 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 16%
Researcher 46 11%
Student > Bachelor 37 9%
Student > Postgraduate 29 7%
Other 89 21%
Unknown 46 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 113 27%
Computer Science 90 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 38 9%
Social Sciences 31 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 6%
Other 61 15%
Unknown 61 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 28 December 2015.
All research outputs
#5,852,946
of 11,073,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#541
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,651
of 103,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#20
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,073,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 103,420 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.