↓ Skip to main content

The effect of electronic health records adoption on patient visit volume at an academic ophthalmology department

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
63 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 effect of electronic health records adoption on patient visit volume at an academic ophthalmology department
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1255-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jocelyn G. Lam, Bryan S. Lee, Philip P. Chen

Abstract

Electronic health records (EHRs) have become a mandated part of delivering health care in the United States. The purpose of this study is to report patient volume before and after the transition to EHR in an academic outpatient ophthalmology practice. Review of patient visits per half-day and number of support staff for established faculty ophthalmologists between July and October for five consecutive years beginning the year before EHR implementation. Eight physicians met inclusion criteria for the study. The number of patient visits was lower in each year after EHR adoption compared to baseline p ≤ 0.027). Patient volume per provider was reduced an average of 16.9 % over the 4 years (range 15.3-18.5 %), and during the final year studied, no provider had returned to the pre-EHR number of patients per clinic session. Support staffing was unchanged (p > 0.2). Adoption of EHR was associated with a significantly reduced number of patient visits per clinic session in an academic setting in which support staffing remained stable. Maintaining clinic volume and access in similar settings may require use of additional staffing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 20 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 21%
Computer Science 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 27 43%
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 14 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,302,535
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,106
of 7,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#332,098
of 395,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#101
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 395,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.