↓ Skip to main content

Missing Clinical Information in NHS hospital outpatient clinics: prevalence, causes and effects on patient care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Missing Clinical Information in NHS hospital outpatient clinics: prevalence, causes and effects on patient care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-11-114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan J Burnett, Vashist Deelchand, Bryony Dean Franklin, Krishna Moorthy, Charles Vincent

Abstract

In Britain over 39,000 reports were received by the National Patient Safety Agency relating to failures in documentation in 2007 and the UK Health Services Journal estimated in 2008 that over a million hospital outpatient visits each year might take place without the full record available. Despite these high numbers, the impact of missing clinical information has not been investigated for hospital outpatients in the UK.Studies in primary care in the USA have found 13.6% of patient consultations have missing clinical information, with this adversely affecting care in about half of cases, and in Australia 1.8% of medical errors were found to be due to the unavailability of clinical information.Our objectives were to assess the frequency, nature and potential impact on patient care of missing clinical information in NHS hospital outpatients and to assess the principal causes. This is the first study to present such figures for the UK and the first to look at how clinicians respond, including the associated impact on patient care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 114 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Postgraduate 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 7 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 18%
Social Sciences 15 12%
Computer Science 11 9%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 14 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 December 2012.
All research outputs
#2,018,654
of 3,636,264 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,163
of 1,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,602
of 276,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#100
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,636,264 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,753 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 276,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.