Search

BackgroundSmartphones are becoming ubiquitous in health care settings. The increased adoption of mobile technology such as smartphones may be attributed to their use as a point-of-care information source and to perceived improvements in clinical communication and efficiency. However, little is known about medical students’ use of personal smartphones for clinical work. ObjectiveThe intent of the study was to examine final-year medical students’ experience with and attitudes toward using personal mobile technology in the clinical environment, with respect to the perceived impact on patient confidentiality and provider professionalism. MethodsCross-sectional surveys were completed by final-year medical students at the University of Toronto. Respondents were asked about the type of personal mobile phone they use, security features on their personal phone, experiences using their personal phone during clinical rotations, and attitudes about using their personal phone for clinical work purposes. ResultsThe overall response rate was 45.4% (99/218). Smartphone ownership was prevalent (98%, 97/99) with the majority (86%, 85/99) of participants using their personal phones for patient-related communication during clinical rotations. A total of 26% (26/99) of participants reported not having any type of security feature on their personal phone, 94% (90/96) of participants agreed that using their personal phone for clinical work makes them more efficient, and 86% (82/95) agreed that their personal phone allows them to provide better patient care. Although 68% (65/95) of participants believe that the use of personal phones for patient-related communication with colleagues poses a risk to the privacy and confidentiality of patient health information, 22% (21/96) of participants still use their personal phone to text or email identifiable patient data to colleagues. ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the use of personal smartphones for clinical work by medical students is prevalent. There is a need to more fully address the threat to patient confidentiality posed by the use of unsecured communication devices such as smartphones.

BackgroundMobile phones with operating systems and capable of running applications (smartphones) are increasingly being used in clinical settings. Medical calculating applications are popular mhealth apps for smartphones. These include, for example, apps that calculate the severity or likelihood of disease-based clinical scoring systems, such as determining the severity of liver disease, the likelihood of having a pulmonary embolism, and risk stratification in acute coronary syndrome. However, the accuracy of these apps has not been assessed. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of smartphone-based medical calculation apps. MethodsA broad search on Google Play, BlackBerry World, and the iTunes App Store was conducted to find medical calculation apps for smartphones. The list of apps was narrowed down based on inclusion and exclusion criteria focusing on functions thought to be relevant by a panel of general internists (number of functions =13). Ten case values were inputted for each function and were compared to manual calculations. For each case, the correct answer was assigned a score of 1. A score for the 10 cases was calculated based on the accuracy of the results for each function on each app. ResultsWe tested 14 apps and 13 functions for each app if that function was available. We conducted 10 cases for each function for a total of 1240 tests. Most functions tested on the apps were accurate in their results with an overall accuracy of 98.6% (17 errors in 1240 tests). In all, 6 of 14 (43%) apps had 100% accuracy. Although 11 of 13 (85%) functions had perfect accuracy, there were issues with 2 functions: the Child-Pugh scores and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores on 8 apps. Approximately half of the errors were clinically significant resulting in a significant change in prognosis (8/17, 47%). ConclusionsThe results suggest that most medical calculating apps provide accurate and reliable results. The free apps that were 100% accurate and contained the most functions desired by internists were CliniCalc, Calculate by QxMD, and Medscape. When using medical calculating apps, the answers will likely be accurate; however, it is important to be careful when calculating MELD scores or Child-Pugh scores on some apps. Despite the few errors found, greater scrutiny is warranted to ensure full accuracy of smartphone medical calculator apps.

BackgroundCommunication and collaboration failures can have negative impacts on the efficiency of both individual clinicians and health care system delivery as well as on the quality of patient care. Recognizing the problems associated with clinical and collaboration communication, health care professionals and organizations alike have begun to look at alternative communication technologies to address some of these inefficiencies and to improve interprofessional collaboration. ObjectiveTo develop recommendations that assist health care organizations in improving communication and collaboration in order to develop effective methods for evaluation. MethodsAn interprofessional meeting was held in a large urban city in Canada with 19 nationally and internationally renowned experts to discuss suitable recommendations for an ideal communication and collaboration system as well as a research framework for general internal medicine (GIM) environments. ResultsIn designing an ideal GIM communication and collaboration system, attendees believed that the new system should possess attributes that aim to: a) improve workflow through prioritization of information and detection of individuals’ contextual situations; b) promote stronger interprofessional relationships with adequate exchange of information; c) enhance patient-centered care by allowing greater patient autonomy over their health care information; d) enable interoperability and scalability between and within institutions; and e) function across different platforms. In terms of evaluating the effects of technology in GIM settings, participants championed the use of rigorous scientific methods that span multiple perspectives and disciplines. Specifically, participants recommended that consistent measures and definitions need to be established so that these impacts can be examined across individual, group, and organizational levels. ConclusionsDiscussions from our meeting demonstrated the complexities of technological implementations in GIM settings. Recommendations on the design principles and research paradigms for an improved communication system are described.

Background The use of the Internet to administer questionnaires has many potential advantages over the use of pen-and-paper administration. Yet it is important to validate Internet administration, as most questionnaires were initially developed and validated for pen-and-paper delivery. While some have been validated for use over the Internet, these questionnaires have predominately been used amongst the healthy general population. To date, information is lacking on the validity of questionnaires administered over the Internet in patients with chronic diseases such as heart failure. Objectives To determine the validity of three heart failure questionnaires administered over the Internet compared to pen-and-paper administration in patients with heart failure. Methods We conducted a prospective randomized study using test-retest design comparing administration via the Internet to pen-and-paper administration for three heart failure questionnaires provided to patients recruited from a heart failure clinic in Toronto, Ontario, Canada: the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), and the Self-Care Heart Failure Index (SCHFI). Results Of the 58 subjects enrolled, 34 completed all three questionnaires. The mean difference and confidence intervals for the summary scores of the KCCQ, MLHFQ, and SCHFI were 1.2 (CI -1.5 to 4.0, scale from 0 to 100), 4.0 (CI -1.98 to 10.04, scale from 0 to 105), and 10.1 (CI 1.18 to 19.07, scale from 66.7 to 300), respectively. Conclusions Internet administration of the KCCQ appears to be equivalent to pen-and-paper administration. For the MLHFQ and SCHFI, we were unable to demonstrate equivalence. Further research is necessary to determine if the administration methods are equivalent for these instruments.

Abstract Background Handheld electronic medical records are expected to improve physician performance and patient care. To confirm this, we performed a systematic review of the evidence assessing the effects of handheld electronic medical records on clinical care. Methods To conduct the systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane library from 1966 through September 2005. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated effects on practitioner performance or patient outcomes of handheld electronic medical records compared to either paper medical records or desktop electronic medical records. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, assessed full text articles and abstracted data from the studies. Results Two studies met our inclusion criteria. No other randomized controlled studies or non-randomized controlled trials were found that met our inclusion criteria. Both studies were methodologically strong. The studies examined changes in documentation in orthopedic patients with handheld electronic medical records compared to paper charts, and both found an increase in documentation. Other effects noted with handheld electronic medical records were an increase in time to document and an increase in wrong or redundant diagnoses. Conclusion Handheld electronic medical records may improve documentation, but as yet, the number of studies is small and the data is restricted to one group of patients and a small group of practitioners. Further study is required to determine the benefits with handheld electronic medical records especially in assessing clinical outcomes.

Background: Communication and collaboration failures can have negative impacts on the efficiency of both individual clinicians and health care system delivery as well as on the quality of patient care. Recognizing the problems associated with clinical and collaboration communication, health care professionals and organizations alike have begun to look at alternative communication technologies to address some of these inefficiencies and to improve interprofessional collaboration. Objective: To develop recommendations that assist health care organizations in improving communication and collaboration in order to develop effective methods for evaluation. Methods: An interprofessional meeting was held in a large urban city in Canada with 19 nationally and internationally renowned experts to discuss suitable recommendations for an ideal communication and collaboration system as well as a research framework for general internal medicine (GIM) environments. Results: In designing an ideal GIM communication and collaboration system, attendees believed that the new system should possess attributes that aim to: a) improve workflow through prioritization of information and detection of individuals' contextual situations; b) promote stronger interprofessional relationships with adequate exchange of information; c) enhance patient-centered care by allowing greater patient autonomy over their health care information; d) enable interoperability and scalability between and within institutions; and e) function across different platforms. In terms of evaluating the effects of technology in GIM settings, participants championed the use of rigorous scientific methods that span multiple perspectives and disciplines. Specifically, participants recommended that consistent measures and definitions need to be established so that these impacts can be examined across individual, group, and organizational levels. Conclusions: Discussions from our meeting demonstrated the complexities of technological implementations in GIM settings. Recommendations on the design principles and research paradigms for an improved communication system are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To characterize current use of communication technologies, including standard text messaging and secure mobile messaging applications, for patient care-related (PCR) communication., Methods: We used a Society of Hospital Medicine database to conduct a national cross-sectional survey of hospital-based clinicians., Results: We analyzed data from 620 survey respondents (adjusted response rate, 11.0%). Pagers were provided by hospitals to 495 (79.8%) of these clinicians, and 304 (49%) of the 620 reported they received PCR messages most commonly by pager. Use of standard text messaging for PCR communication was common, with 300 (52.9%) of 567 clinicians reporting receipt of standard text messages once or more per day. Overall, 21.5% (122/567) of respondents received standard text messages that included individually identifiable information, 41.3% (234/567) received messages that included some identifiable information (eg, patient initials), and 21.0% (119/567) received messages for urgent clinical issues at least once per day. About one-fourth of respondents (26.6%, 146/549) reported their organization had implemented a secure messaging application that some clinicians were using, whereas few (7.3%, 40/549) reported their organization had implemented an application that most clinicians were using., Discussion: Pagers remain the technology most commonly used by hospital-based clinicians, but a majority also use standard text messaging for PCR communication, and relatively few hospitals have fully implemented secure mobile messaging applications., Conclusion: The wide range of technologies used suggests an evolution of methods to support communication among healthcare professionals., (© 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine)

Introduction: Hospital-based medical services are increasingly utilizing team-based pagers and smartphones to streamline communications. However, an unintended consequence may be higher volumes of interruptions potentially leading to medical error. There is likely a level at which interruptions are excessive and cause a 'crisis mode' climate., Methods: We retrospectively collected phone, text messaging, and email interruptions directed to hospital-assigned smartphones on eight General Internal Medicine (GIM) teams at two tertiary care centres in Toronto, Ontario from April 2013 to September 2014. We also calculated the number of times these interruptions exceeded a pre-specified threshold per hour, termed 'crisis mode', defined as at least five interruptions in 30 minutes. We analyzed the correlation between interruptions and date, site, and patient volumes., Results: A total of 187,049 interruptions were collected over an 18-month period. Daily weekday interruptions rose sharply in the morning, peaking between 11 AM to 12 PM and measuring 4.8 and 3.7 mean interruptions/hour at each site, respectively. Mean daily interruptions per team totaled 46.2 ± 3.6 at Site 1 and 39.2 ± 4.2 at Site 2. The 'crisis mode' threshold was exceeded, on average, 2.3 times/day per GIM team during weekdays. In a multivariable linear regression analysis, site (β6.43 CI95% 5.44 - 7.42, p<0.001), day of the week (with Friday having the most interruptions) (β0.481 CI95% 0.236 - 0.730, p<0.05) and patient census (β1.55 CI95% 1.42 - 1.67, p<0.05) were all predictive of daily interruption volume although there was a significant interaction effect between site and patient census (β-0.941 CI95% -1.18 - -0.703, p<0.05)., Conclusion: Interruptions were related to site-specific features, including volume, suggesting that future interventions should target the culture of individual hospitals. Excessive interruptions may have implications for patient safety especially when exceeding a maximal threshold over short periods of time.

Background: Internet disease management has the promise of improving care in patients with heart failure but evidence supporting its use is limited. We have designed a Heart Failure Internet Communication Tool (HFICT), allowing patients to enter messages for clinicians, as well as their daily symptoms, weight, blood pressure and heart rate. Clinicians review the information on the same day and provide feedback., Objective: This pilot study evaluated the feasibility and patients' acceptability of using the Internet to communicate with patients with symptomatic heart failure., Methods: Patients with symptomatic heart failure were instructed how to use the Internet communication tool. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who used the system regularly by entering information on average at least once per week for at least 3 months. Secondary outcomes measures included safety and maintainability of the tool. We also conducted a content analysis of a subset of the patient and clinician messages entered into the comments field., Results: Between 3 May 1999 and 1 November 2002, 62 patients (mean age 48.7 years) were enrolled. At 3 months 58 patients were alive and without a heart transplant. Of those, 26 patients (45%; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.33-0.58) continued using the system at 3 months. In 97% of all entries by participants weight was included; 68% of entries included blood pressure; and 71% of entries included heart rate. In 3,386 entries out of all 5,098 patient entries (66%), comments were entered. Functions that were not used included the tracking of diuretics, medications and treatment goals. The tool appeared to be safe and maintainable. Workload estimates for clinicians for entering a response to each patient's entry ranged from less than a minute to 5 minutes or longer for a detailed response. Patients sent 3,386 comments to the Heart Function Clinic. Based on the content analysis of 100 patient entries, the following major categories of communication were identified: patient information; patient symptoms; patient questions regarding their condition; patient coordinating own care; social responses. The number of comments decreased over time for both patients and clinicians., Conclusions: While the majority of patients discontinued use, 45% of the patients used the system and continued to use it on average for 1.5 years. An Internet tool is a feasible method of communication in a substantial proportion of patients with heart failure. Further study is required to determine whether clinical outcomes, such as quality of life or frequency of hospitalization, are improved.

There are many reasons why most hospitals have not adopted physician order entry systems for medications. It is a costly endeavour (Kuperman and Gibson 2003) that can cause major disruptions to workflow for physicians, pharmacists and nurses. Yet, the technology can reduce medication errors, especially with sophisticated decision support. We have presented many of the lessons learned from our successful implementation experience. To date, over 90% of medication orders are entered by physicians. The technology must be ready for the implementation. System issues such as errors, slowness and freezing give ready opportunity for critics who will claim the system is just not ready for real-time. Through rigorous testing, we were able to avoid issues previously seen in our pilot study. Usability testing with end-users was also critical in both guiding decision-making as well as validating that the system was ready for implementation. Proper training and support were also necessary. To ensure ready adoption, decision support was optimized to reduce the volume of less important alerts. Most importantly, we found that active physician involvement at multiple levels was key. This ensured that physicians understood from a high-level perspective that this change was necessary. Planning for specific implementation details had the benefit of input from physicians working in the area. Day-to-day issues of our residents and staff were also addressed promptly.