This paper discusses the current state, barriers, and future directions of consumer-facing applications (apps). There are currently more than 165,000 mobile health apps publicly available in major app stores, the vast majority of which are designed for patients. The top 2 categories are wellness management and disease management apps, whereas other categories include self-diagnosis, medication reminder, and electronic patient portal apps. Apps specific to physical medicine and rehabilitation also are reviewed. These apps have the potential to provide low-cost, around-the-clock access to high-quality, evidence-based health information to end users on a global scale. However, they have not yet lived up to their potential due to multiple barriers, including lack of regulatory oversight, limited evidence-based literature, and concerns of privacy and security. The future directions may consist of improving data integration into the health care system, an interoperable app platform allowing access to electronic health record data, cloud-based personal health record across health care networks, and increasing app prescription by health care providers. For consumer mobile health apps to fully contribute value to health care delivery and chronic disease management, all stakeholders within the ecosystem must collaborate to overcome the significant barriers.

No abstract

Survey interviews were conducted with a random sample of 50 primarily indigent, African American and Puerto Rican men and women at an outpatient human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinic in the Bronx, New York. Analyses revealed a generally high rate of adherence according to self-report data (i.e., on average, participants reported taking 85% of their medications over the last 3 days). However, adherence to the correct number of pills, dosing schedules, and special instructions was more problematic. No sociodemographic or substance use indicators were associated with adherence. Compared to men, women reported higher scores on the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale, which were positively correlated with self-reported adherence. "Forgot" (50%) and "felt worse" (46%) were the most common reasons for missed doses. Mediation analyses provided partial support for our proposed model of social support and adherence. Specifically, regression analyses controlling for social desirability indicated that need for social support was positively correlated with acknowledged nonadherence and that this relationship was mediated by self-efficacy and depressive symptomatology.

BACKGROUND:Deficits in information transfer between inpatient and outpatient physicians are common and potentially dangerous.OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of a newly‐created electronic discharge summary.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS:Pre‐post evaluation of discharge summaries using a survey of outpatient physicians and a medical records review.MEASUREMENTS:Outpatient physicians' ratings of satisfaction with discharge summaries before and after implementation of an electronic discharge summary using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied). Additionally, 196 randomly selected discharge summaries before and after implementation were rated for timeliness and presence of 16 key content areas by 3 internists.RESULTS:Two hundred and twenty‐six of 416 (54%) and 256 of 397 (64%) outpatient physicians completed the baseline and postimplementation surveys. Satisfaction with quality and timeliness of discharge summaries improved with the use of the electronic discharge summary (mean quality rating 3.04 versus 3.64; P < 0.001, mean timeliness rating 2.59 versus 3.34; P < 0.001). A higher percentage of electronic discharge summaries were completed within 3 days of discharge as compared with dictated discharge summaries (44.8% versus 74.1%; P < 0.001). Several elements of the discharge summary were present more often with the electronic discharge summary, including discussion of follow‐up issues (52.0% versus 75.8%; P = 0.001), pending test results (13.9% versus 46.3%; P < 0.001), and information provided to the patient and/or family (85.1% versus 95.8%; P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONS:The use of an electronic discharge summary significantly improved the quality and timeliness of discharge summaries. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2009;4:219–225. © 2009 Society of Hospital Medicine.

BACKGROUNDDespite the dramatic growth of hospitalists, no studies have evaluated the type and frequency of activities that hospitalists perform. To evaluate the types and frequency of activities that hospitalists perform during routine work, we conducted a time‐motion study of hospitalist physicians at our institution.DESIGNA research assistant shadowed hospitalist physicians for 3‐ to 5‐hour periods. Observation periods were distributed in order to sample all parts of a typical day of a hospitalist, including both admitting and nonadmitting periods. Activities were recorded on a standardized data collection form in 1‐minute intervals. Incoming pages were recorded as well.RESULTSTen hospitalists were shadowed by a single research assistant for a total of 4467 minutes. Hospitalists spent 18% of their time on direct patient care, 69% on indirect patient care, 4% on personal activities, and 3% each on professional development, education, and travel. Communication accounted for 24% of the total minutes. Multitasking, performing more than one activity at the same time, was done 21% of the time. Hospitalists received an average of 3.4 ± 1.5 pages per hour.CONCLUSIONSHospitalists spent most of their time on indirect patient care activities and relatively little time on direct patient care. Hospitalists spent a large amount of time on communication, underscoring the need for hospitalists to have outstanding communication skills and systems that support efficient communication. Multitasking and paging interruptions were common. The inherent distraction caused by interruptions and multitasking is a potential contributor to medical error and warrants further study. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2006;1:88–93. © 2006 Society of Hospital Medicine.