↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions of primary care staff on a regional data quality intervention in Australian general practice: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Perceptions of primary care staff on a regional data quality intervention in Australian general practice: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Primary Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0445-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abhijeet Ghosh, Sandra McCarthy, Elizabeth Halcomb

Abstract

Technological advances in clinical data capturing and storage systems have led to recent attempts at disease surveillance and region specific population health planning through regularly collected primary care administrative clinical data. However the accuracy and comprehensiveness of primary care health records remain questionable. We aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of general practice staff in maintaining accurate patient health data within clinical software used in primary care settings of regional NSW. Focus groups were conducted with general practitioners, practice nurses and practice administrative staff from 17 practices in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven region of the state of New South Wales (NSW) in Australia that had participated in the Sentinel Practices Data Sourcing (SPDS) project - a general practice based chronic disease surveillance and data quality improvement study. A total of 25 respondents that included 12 general practitioners (GPs) and 13 practice staff participated in the 6 focus groups. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. Five key themes emerged from the data. Firstly, the theme of resourcing data management raised issues of time constraints, the lack of a dedicated data management role and the importance of multidisciplinary involvement, including a data champion. The need for incentives was identified as being important to motivate ongoing commitment to maintaining data quality. However, quality of software packages, including coding issues and software limitations and information technology skills were seen as key barriers. The final theme provided insight into the lessons learnt from the project and the increased awareness of the importance of data quality amongst practice staff. The move towards electronic methods of maintaining general practice patient records offers significant potential benefits in terms of both patient care and monitoring of health status and health needs within the community. However, this study has reinforced the importance of human factors in the maintenance of such datasets. To achieve optimal benefits of electronic health and medical records for patient care and for population health planning purposes, it is extremely essential to address the barriers that clinicians and other staff face in maintaining complete and correct primary care patient electronic health and medical information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 18%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Computer Science 6 7%
Engineering 5 6%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 26 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 December 2019.
All research outputs
#4,808,603
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#672
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,866
of 312,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#14
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 312,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 54% of its contemporaries.