Dataset Information

The Use of Communication Apps by Medical Staff in the Australian Health Care System: Survey Study on Prevalence and Use.

ABSTRACT: The use of communication apps on mobile phones offers an efficient, unobtrusive, and portable mode of communication for medical staff. The potential enhancements in patient care and education appear significant, with clinical details able to be shared quickly within multidisciplinary teams, supporting rapid integration of disparate information, and more efficient patient care. However, sharing patient data in this way also raises legal and ethical issues. No data is currently available demonstrating how widespread the use of these apps are, doctor's attitudes towards them, or what guides clinician choice of app.The objective of this study was to quantify and qualify the use of communication apps among medical staff in clinical situations, their role in patient care, and knowledge and attitudes towards safety, key benefits, potential disadvantages, and policy implications.Medical staff in hospitals across Victoria (Australia) were invited to participate in an anonymous 33-question survey. The survey collected data on respondent's demographics, their use of communication apps in clinical settings, attitudes towards communication apps, perceptions of data "safety," and why one communication app was chosen over others.Communication apps in Victorian hospitals are in widespread use from students to consultants, with WhatsApp being the primary app used. The median number of messages shared per day was 12, encompassing a range of patient information. All respondents viewed these apps positively in quickly communicating patient information in a clinical setting; however, all had concerns about the privacy implications arising from sharing patient information in this way. In total, 67% (60/90) considered patient data "moderately safe" on these apps, and 50% (46/90) were concerned the use of these apps was inconsistent with current legislation and policy. Apps were more likely to be used if they were fast, easy to use, had an easy login process, and were already in widespread use.Communication app use by medical personnel in Victorian hospitals is pervasive. These apps contribute to enhanced communication between medical staff, but their use raises compliance issues, most notably with Australian privacy legislation. Development of privacy-compliant apps such as MedX needs to prioritize a user-friendly interface and market the product as a privacy-compliant comparator to apps previously adapted to health care settings.

SUBMITTER: Nikolic A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5889814 | biostudies-other | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Use of Communication Apps by Medical Staff in the Australian Health Care System: Survey Study on Prevalence and Use.

Nikolic Amanda A Wickramasinghe Nilmini N Claydon-Platt Damian D Balakrishnan Vikram V Smart Philip P Smart Philip P

JMIR medical informatics 20180209 1

<h4>Background</h4>The use of communication apps on mobile phones offers an efficient, unobtrusive, and portable mode of communication for medical staff. The potential enhancements in patient care and education appear significant, with clinical details able to be shared quickly within multidisciplinary teams, supporting rapid integration of disparate information, and more efficient patient care. However, sharing patient data in this way also raises legal and ethical issues. No data is currently ...[more]

PMID: 29426813

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCoincident with the proliferation of employer-provided mobile communication devices, personal communication devices, including basic and enhanced mobile phones (smartphones) and tablet computers that are owned by the user, have become ubiquitous among registered nurses working in hospitals. While there are numerous benefits of personal communication device use by nurses at work, little is known about the impact of these devices on in-patient care.ObjectiveOur aim was to examine how hospital-registered nurses use their personal communication devices while doing both work-related and non‒work-related activities and to assess the impact of these devices on in-patient care.MethodsA previously validated survey was emailed to 14,797 members of two national nursing organizations. Participants were asked about personal communication device use and their opinions about the impact of these devices on their own and their colleagues' work.ResultsOf the 1268 respondents (8.57% response rate), only 5.65% (70/1237) never used their personal communication device at work (excluding lunch and breaks). Respondents self-reported using their personal communication devices at work for work-related activities including checking or sending text messages or emails to health care team members (29.02%, 363/1251), as a calculator (25.34%, 316/1247), and to access work-related medical information (20.13%, 251/1247). Fewer nurses reported using their devices for non‒work-related activities including checking or sending text messages or emails to friends and family (18.75%, 235/1253), shopping (5.14%, 64/1244), or playing games (2.73%, 34/1249). A minority of respondents believe that their personal device use at work had a positive effect on their work including reducing stress (29.88%, 369/1235), benefiting patient care (28.74%, 357/1242), improving coordination of patient care among the health care team (25.34%, 315/1243), or increasing unit teamwork (17.70%, 220/1243). A majority (69.06%, 848/1228) of respondents believe that on average personal communication devices have a more negative than positive impact on patient care and 39.07% (481/1231) reported that personal communication devices were always or often a distraction while working. Respondents acknowledged their own device use negatively affected their work performance (7.56%, 94/1243), or caused them to miss important clinical information (3.83%, 47/1225) or make a medical error (0.90%, 11/1218). Respondents reported witnessing another nurse's use of devices negatively affect their work performance (69.41%, 860/1239), or cause them to miss important clinical information (30.61%, 378/1235) or make a medical error (12.51%, 155/1239). Younger respondents reported greater device use while at work than older respondents and generally had more positive opinions about the impact of personal communication devices on their work.ConclusionsThe majority of registered nurses believe that the use of personal communication devices on hospital units raises significant safety issues. The high rate of respondents who saw colleagues distracted by their devices compared to the rate who acknowledged their own distraction may be an indication that nurses are unaware of their own attention deficits while using their devices. There were clear generational differences in personal communication device use at work and opinions about the impact of these devices on patient care. Professional codes of conduct for personal communication device use by hospital nurses need to be developed that maximize the benefits of personal communication device use, while reducing the potential for distraction and adverse outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the quality of communication between hospitals and home health care (HHC) clinicians and patient preparedness to receive HHC in a statewide sample of HHC nurses and staff.DesignA web-based 48-question cross-sectional survey of HHC nurses and staff in Colorado to describe the quality of communication after hospital discharge and patient preparedness to receive HHC from the perspective of HHC nurses and staff. Questions were on a Likert scale, with optional free-text questions.Setting and participantsBetween January and June 2017, we sent a web-based survey to individuals from the 56 HHC agencies in the Home Care Association of Colorado that indicated willingness to participate.ResultsWe received responses from 50 of 122 individuals (41% individual response rate) representing 14 of 56 HHC agencies (25% agency response rate). Half of the respondents were HHC nurses, the remainder were managers, administrators, or quality assurance clinicians. Among respondents, 60% (n = 30) reported receiving insufficient information to guide patient management in HHC and 44% (n = 22) reported encountering problems related to inadequate patient information. Additional tests recommended by hospital clinicians was the communication domain most frequently identified as insufficient (58%). More than half of respondents (52%) indicated that patient preparation to receive HHC was inadequate, with patient expectations frequently including extended-hours caregiving, housekeeping, and transportation, which are beyond the scope of HHC. Respondents with electronic health record (EHR) access for referring providers were less likely to encounter problems related to a lack of information (27% vs 57% without EHR access, P = .04). Respondents with EHR access were also more likely to have sufficient information about medications and contact isolation.Conclusions/implicationsCommunication between hospitals and HHC is suboptimal, and patients are often not prepared to receive HHC. Providing EHR access for HHC clinicians is a promising solution to improve the quality of communication.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic decision support is commonplace in medical practice. However, its adoption at the point-of-care is dependent on a range of organisational, patient and clinician-related factors. In particular, level of clinical experience is an important driver of electronic decision support uptake. Our objective was to examine the way in which Australian doctors at different stages of medical training use a web-based oncology system (http://www.eviq.org.au).MethodsWe used logfiles to examine the characteristics of eviQ registrants (2009-2012) and patterns of eviQ use in 2012, according to level of medical training. We also used a web-based survey to evaluate the way doctors at different levels of medical training use the online system and to elicit perceptions of the system's utility in oncology care.ResultsOur study cohort comprised 2,549 eviQ registrants who were hospital-based medical doctors across all levels of training. 65% of the cohort used eviQ in 2012, with 25% of interns/residents, 61% of advanced oncology trainees and 47% of speciality-qualified oncologists accessing eviQ in the last 3 months of 2012. The cohort accounted for 445,492 webhits in 2012. On average, advanced trainees used eviQ up to five-times more than other doctors (42.6 webhits/month compared to 22.8 for specialty-qualified doctors and 7.4 webhits/month for interns/residents). Of the 52 survey respondents, 89% accessed eviQ's chemotherapy protocols on a daily or weekly basis in the month prior to the survey. 79% of respondents used eviQ at least weekly to initiate therapy and to support monitoring (29%), altering (35%) or ceasing therapy (19%). Consistent with the logfile analysis, advanced oncology trainees report more frequent eviQ use than doctors at other stages of medical training.ConclusionsThe majority of the Australian oncology workforce are registered on eviQ. The frequency of use directly mirrors the clinical role of doctors and attitudes about the utility of eviQ in decision-making. Evaluations of this kind generate important data for system developers and medical educators to drive improvements in electronic decision support to better meet the needs of clinicians. This end-user focus will optimise the uptake of systems which will translate into improvements in processes of care and patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundUnnecessary or inappropriate use of antimicrobials is associated with the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, drug toxicity, increased morbidity and health care costs. Antimicrobial use has been reported to be incorrect or not indicated in 9-64% of inpatients. We studied the quality of antimicrobial therapy and prophylaxis in hospitalized patients at a tertiary care hospital to plan interventions to improve the quality of antimicrobial prescription.Methodology/principal findingsExperienced infectious diseases (ID) fellows performed audits of antimicrobial use at regular intervals among all patients--with or without antimicrobials--hospitalized in predefined surgical, medical, haemato-oncological, or intensive care units. Data were collected from medical and nursing patient charts with a standardized questionnaire. Appropriateness of antimicrobial use was evaluated using a modified algorithm developed by Gyssens et al.; the assessment was double-checked by a senior ID specialist. We evaluated 1577 patients of whom 700 (44.4%) had antimicrobials, receiving a total of 1270 prescriptions. 958 (75.4%) prescriptions were for therapy and 312 (24.6%) for prophylaxis. 37.0% of therapeutic and 16.6% of prophylactic prescriptions were found to be inappropriate. Most frequent characteristics of inappropriate treatments included: No indication (17.5%); incorrect choice of antimicrobials (7.6%); incorrect application of drugs (9.3%); and divergence from institutional guidelines (8%). Characteristics of inappropriate prophylaxes were: No indication (9%); incorrect choice of antimicrobials (1%); duration too long or other inappropriate use (6.7%). Patterns of inappropriate antimicrobial varied widely in the different hospital units; empirical prescriptions were more frequently incorrect than prescriptions based on available microbiological results.Conclusions/significanceAudits of individual patient care provide important data to identify local problems in antimicrobial prescription practice. In our study, antimicrobial prescriptions without indication, and divergence from institutional guidelines were frequent errors. Based on these results, we will tailor education, amend institutional guidelines and further develop the infectious diseases consultation service.

Dataset Information

The Use of Communication Apps by Medical Staff in the Australian Health Care System: Survey Study on Prevalence and Use.

Publications

The Use of Communication Apps by Medical Staff in the Australian Health Care System: Survey Study on Prevalence and Use.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets