• J. Med. Internet Res. · Apr 2016

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Interprofessional Communication of Clinicians Using a Mobile Phone App: A Randomized Crossover Trial Using Simulated Patients.

    • Bhavesh Patel, Maximilian Johnston, Natalie Cookson, Dominic King, Sonal Arora, and Ara Darzi.
    • Department of Surgery and Cancer, St Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. bhavesh.patel07@imperial.ac.uk.
    • J. Med. Internet Res. 2016 Apr 6; 18 (4): e79.

    BackgroundMost hospitals use paging systems as the principal communication system, despite general dissatisfaction by end users. To this end, we developed an app-based communication system (called Hark) to facilitate and improve the quality of interpersonal communication.ObjectiveThe objectives of our study were (1) to assess the quality of information transfer using pager- and app-based (Hark) communication systems, (2) to determine whether using mobile phone apps for escalation of care results in additional delays in communication, and (3) to determine how end users perceive mobile phone apps as an alternative to pagers.MethodsWe recruited junior (postgraduate year 1 and 2) doctors and nurses from a range of specialties and randomly assigned them to 2 groups who used either a pager device or the mobile phone-based Hark app. We asked nurses to hand off simulated patients while doctors were asked to receive handoff information using these devices. The quality of information transfer, time taken to respond to messages, and users' satisfaction with each device was recorded. Each participant used both devices with a 2-week washout period in between uses.ResultsWe recruited 22 participants (13 nurses, 9 doctors). The quality of the referrals made by nurses was significantly better when using Hark (Hark median 118, range 100-121 versus pager median 77, range 39-104; P=.001). Doctors responded to messages using Hark more quickly than when responding to pagers, although this difference was not statistically significant (Hark mean 86.6 seconds, SD 96.2 versus pager mean 136.5 seconds, SD 201.0; P=.12). Users rated Hark as significantly better on 11 of the 18 criteria of an information transfer device (P<.05) These included "enhances interprofessional efficiency," "results in less disturbance," "performed desired functions reliably," and "allows me to clearly transfer information."ConclusionsHark improved the quality of transfer of information about simulated patients and was rated by users as more effective and efficient, and less distracting than pagers. Using this device did not result in delay in patient care.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…