↓ Skip to main content

The role and benefits of accessing primary care patient records during unscheduled care: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#28 of 2,066)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
69 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
The role and benefits of accessing primary care patient records during unscheduled care: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0523-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Bowden, Enrico Coiera

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of accessing primary care records on unscheduled care. Unscheduled care is typically delivered in hospital Emergency Departments. Studies published to December 2014 reporting on primary care record access during unscheduled care were retrieved. Twenty-two articles met inclusion criteria from a pool of 192. Many shared electronic health records (SEHRs) were large in scale, servicing many millions of patients. Reported utilization rates by clinicians was variable, with rates >20% amongst health management organizations but much lower in nation-scale systems. No study reported on clinical outcomes or patient safety, and no economic studies of SEHR access during unscheduled care were available. Design factors that may affect utilization included consent and access models, SEHR content, and system usability and reliability. Despite their size and expense, SEHRs designed to support unscheduled care have been poorly evaluated, and it is not possible to draw conclusions about any likely benefits associated with their use. Heterogeneity across the systems and the populations they serve make generalization about system design or performance difficult. None of the reviewed studies used a theoretical model to guide evaluation. Value of Information models may be a useful theoretical approach to design evaluation metrics, facilitating comparison across systems in future studies. Well-designed SEHRs should in principle be capable of improving the efficiency, quality and safety of unscheduled care, but at present the evidence for such benefits is weak, largely because it has not been sought.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 18%
Researcher 11 9%
Other 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 37 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 16%
Computer Science 10 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 41 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 23 October 2017.
All research outputs
#909,913
of 24,172,513 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#28
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,497
of 322,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,172,513 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 322,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.