↓ Skip to main content

Improving performance in the ED through laboratory information exchange systems

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Improving performance in the ED through laboratory information exchange systems
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12245-018-0179-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louis Raymond, Guy Paré, Éric Maillet, Ana Ortiz de Guinea, Marie-Claude Trudel, Josianne Marsan

Abstract

The accessibility of laboratory test results is crucial to the performance of emergency departments and to the safety of patients. This study aims to develop a better understanding of which laboratory information exchange (LIE) systems emergency care physicians (ECPs) are using to consult their patients' laboratory test results and which benefits they derive from such use. A survey of 163 (36%) ECPs in Quebec was conducted in collaboration with the Quebec's Department of Health and Social Services. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, cluster analyses, and ANOVAs were conducted. The great majority of respondents indicated that they use several LIE systems including interoperable electronic health record (iEHR) systems, laboratory results viewers (LRVs), and emergency department information systems (EDIS) to consult their patients' laboratory results. Three distinct profiles of LIE users were observed. The extent of LIE usage was found to be primarily determined by the functional design differences between LIE systems available in the EDs. Our findings also indicate that the more widespread LIE usage, the higher the perceived benefits. More specifically, physicians who make extensive use of iEHR systems and LRVs obtain the widest range of benefits in terms of efficiency, quality, and safety of emergency care. Extensive use of LIE systems allows ECPs to better determine and monitor the health status of their patients, verify their diagnostic assumptions, and apply evidence-based practices in laboratory medicine. But for such benefits to be possible, ECPs must be provided with LIE systems that produce accurate, up-to-date, complete, and easy-to-interpret information.

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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 11%
Design 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 12 32%
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 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,494,712
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#450
of 606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,623
of 332,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 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 606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 332,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.