↓ Skip to main content

Implementation and use of electronic synoptic cancer reporting: an explorative case study of six Norwegian pathology laboratories

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Implementation and use of electronic synoptic cancer reporting: an explorative case study of six Norwegian pathology laboratories
Published in
Implementation Science, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0111-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bettina Casati, Hans Kristian Haugland, Gunn Marit J Barstad, Roger Bjugn

Abstract

BackgroundThe information contained in histopathology reports on surgical resections of cancer is fundamental for both patient treatment and cancer registries. Electronic synoptic histopathology reporting is considered superior to traditional narrative reporting with respect to both completeness and feasibility of data use. An electronic template for colorectal cancer reporting was introduced in Norway in 2005, but implementation has varied greatly between different pathology departments. In 2012, four pathology departments and the Norwegian Cancer Registry started a new initiative on electronic cancer reporting. As part of this initiative, this study was undertaken to learn more about factors influencing implementation and use.MethodsQualitative and quantitative data were obtained from six of the 17 public pathology departments in Norway using explorative case study methodology. Methods included document studies, semi-structured interviews with key informants, and audits on actual template use. A systematic analysis of data was conducted based on theoretical models for project management, stakeholder engagement, and individual acceptance of new information technology.ResultsMost key informants had a positive view on synoptic reporting, and five departments had tested the electronic template. Of these, four had implemented the template while one department had decided not to implement it due to layout concerns. Of the four departments using the template in daily routine, one had compulsory use, two consensus based use, while the fourth had voluntary use. Annual average usage of the electronic template in the three departments with compulsory or consensus based use was 92% compared to 53% in the department with voluntary use.ConclusionsThere was a general positive attitude towards electronic synoptic reporting. Reasons for not implementing the colorectal template were specific technical and quality issues not adequately addressed by the project organization having developed the template. A formal assessment of project outcomes with a task force handling such technical issues should accordingly have been established as part of the project. After an organizational decision on implementation, perceived job relevance and practical benefits are factors important for individual template use. Consistent high long-term usage was related to a departmental environment with a consensus based decision on use.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Librarian 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 10%
Psychology 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,303,896
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,556
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,151
of 235,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#40
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 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 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 235,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 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.