↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Electronic medical record and glaucoma medications: connecting the medication reconciliation with adherence

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Electronic medical record and glaucoma medications: connecting the medication reconciliation with adherence
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s92785
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas S Bacon, Kenneth C Fan, Manishi A Desai

Abstract

To evaluate consistency in documentation of glaucoma medications in the electronic medical record and identify which regimen patients adhere to when inconsistencies exist. Factors contributing to medication nonadherence are also explored. Retrospective chart review of medication adherence encompassing 200 patients from three glaucoma physicians at a tertiary referral center over a 1-month period. Adherence was determined by the consistency between a patients stated medication regimen and either the active medication list in the electronic medical record, or the physicians planned medication regimen in the preceding clinic visit. Patient charts were also reviewed for patient sex, age, primary language, race, and total number of medications. A total of 160 charts showed consistency in documentation between the physician note and electronic medication reconciliation. Of those patients, 83.1% reported adherence with their glaucoma medication schedule. When there was a discrepancy in documentation (40 charts), 72.5% patients followed the physician-stated regimen vs 20% who followed neither vs 7.5% who followed the medical record (P<0.01). No difference in adherence was observed based on sex (P=0.912) or total number of medications taken (P=0.242). Language, both English- (P=0.075) and Haitian (P=0.10) -speaking populations, as well as race, Caucasian (P=0.31), African-American (P=0.54), and Hispanic (P=0.58), had no impact on medication adherence. Patients over 80 years of age were more nonadherent as compared to other decades (P=0.04). Inconsistent documentation between the electronic medical record physician note and medication regimen may contribute to patient medication nonadherence. Patients over 80 years of age were associated with higher rates of nonadherence, while sex, total number of medications, race, and language had no interaction with medication adherence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Lecturer 1 4%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 14 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,783,193
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,087
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,816
of 399,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#27
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 399,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 52% of its contemporaries.