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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluation of the clinical process in a critical care information system using the Lean method: a case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-150 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maryati Mohd Yusof, Soudabeh Khodambashi, Ariffin Marzuki Mokhtar |
| Abstract |
There are numerous applications for Health Information Systems (HIS) that support specific tasks in the clinical workflow. The Lean method has been used increasingly to optimize clinical workflows, by removing waste and shortening the delivery cycle time. There are a limited number of studies on Lean applications related to HIS. Therefore, we applied the Lean method to evaluate the clinical processes related to HIS, in order to evaluate its efficiency in removing waste and optimizing the process flow. This paper presents the evaluation findings of these clinical processes, with regards to a critical care information system (CCIS), known as IntelliVue Clinical Information Portfolio (ICIP), and recommends solutions to the problems that were identified during the study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 155 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 12% |
| Researcher | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 32 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 28 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 18 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 32 | 20% |
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 24 December 2012.
All research outputs
#15,258,711
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,306
of 1,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,137
of 280,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#39
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,980 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 280,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.