↓ Skip to main content

Clinical decision support improves quality of telephone triage documentation - an analysis of triage documentation before and after computerized clinical decision support

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Clinical decision support improves quality of telephone triage documentation - an analysis of triage documentation before and after computerized clinical decision support
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-14-20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederick North, Debra D Richards, Kimberly A Bremseth, Mary R Lee, Debra L Cox, Prathibha Varkey, Robert J Stroebel

Abstract

Clinical decision support (CDS) has been shown to be effective in improving medical safety and quality but there is little information on how telephone triage benefits from CDS. The aim of our study was to compare triage documentation quality associated with the use of a clinical decision support tool, ExpertRN©.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 31%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Computer Science 6 8%
Engineering 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 18 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 June 2014.
All research outputs
#7,131,612
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#706
of 1,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,901
of 223,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,985 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 223,361 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 65% of its contemporaries.