↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the implementation of an electronic record into a maternity unit: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2017
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
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Exploring the implementation of an electronic record into a maternity unit: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0406-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

To explore the benefits, barriers and disadvantages of implementing an electronic record system (ERS). The extent that the system has become 'normalised' into routine practice was also explored. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 members of NHS staff who represented a variety of staff groups (doctors, midwives of different grades, health care assistants) and wards within a maternity unit at a NHS teaching hospital. Interviews were conducted during the first year of the phased implementation of ERS and were analysed thematically. The four mechanisms of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring) were adapted for use within the study and provided a theoretical framework to interpret the study's findings. Coherence (participants' understanding of why the ERS has been implemented) was mixed - whilst those involved in ERS implementation anticipated advantages such as improved access to information; the majority were unclear why the ERS was introduced. Participants' willingness to engage with and invest time into the ERS (cognitive participation) depended on the amount of training and support they received and their willingness to change from paper to electronic records. Collective action (the extent the ERS was used) may be influenced by whether participants perceived there to be benefits associated with the system. Whilst some individuals reported benefits such as improved legibility of records, others felt benefits were yet to emerge. The parallel use of paper and the lack of integration of electronic systems within and between the trust and other healthcare organisations hindered ERS use. When appraising the ERS (reflexive monitoring) participants perceived the system to negatively impact the patient-clinician relationship, time and patient safety. Despite expectations that the ERS would have a number of advantages, its implementation was perceived to have a range of disadvantages and only a limited number of 'clinical benefits'. The study highlights the complexity of implementing electronic systems and the associated longevity before they can become 'embedded' into routine practice. Through the identification of barriers to the employment of electronic systems this process could be streamlined with the avoidance of any potential detriment to clinical services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 100 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 15 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Computer Science 10 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 18 17%

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 18 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,624,103
of 14,155,626 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#668
of 1,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,610
of 376,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#57
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,155,626 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 1,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 376,206 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 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.