ObjectivesIn healthcare, mobile computing made possible by smartphones is becoming an important tool among healthcare professionals. However, currently there is very little research into the effectiveness of such applications of technology. This study aims to present a framework for a smartphone application to give doctors mobile access to patient information, then review the consequences of its use and discuss its future direction.MethodsSince 2003 when Samsung Medical Center introduced its first mobile application, a need to develop a new application targeting the latest smartphone technology was identified. To that end, an application named Dr. SMART S was officially launched on December 22nd, 2010.ResultsWe analyzed the usage data of the application for a month until April 25th, 2011. On average, 170 doctors (13% of the entire body of doctors) logged on 2.4 times per day and that number keeps growing. The number was uniformly distributed across all working hours, with exceptions of heavy accesses around 6-8 AM and 4-6 PM when doctors do their regular rounds to see the patients. The most commonly accessed content was inpatient information, this constituted 78.6% of all accesses, within this 50% was to accesses lab results.ConclusionsLooking at the usage data, we can see the use of Dr. SMART S by doctors is growing in sync with the popularity of smartphones. Since u-Health seem an inevitable future trend, a more rigorous study needs to be conducted on how such mobile applications as Dr. SMART S affect the quality of care and patient safety to derive directions for further improvements.

BackgroundWith the emergence of mobile devices, mobile electronic health record (mEHR) systems have been utilized by health care professionals (HCPs), including doctors, nurses, and other practitioners, to improve efficiency at the point of care. Although several studies on mEHR systems were conducted, including those analyzing their effects and HCPs’ usage frequency, only a few considered the specific workflows of doctors based on their specialties in which the work process differs greatly.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the differences in mEHR usage paths across clinical specialties.MethodsWe collected the log data of 974 doctors who worked from August 2016 to August 2017 and used the mEHR system at the Samsung Medical Center, one of the biggest hospitals in South Korea. The doctors were classified into 3 groups based on their specialty: the physician, the surgeon, and other hospital-based physician (OHBP) groups. We used various descriptive and visualization methods to understand and compare doctors’ usage paths of mEHRs. First, the average numbers of log-ins per day and features used per log-in were examined over different specialties and positions. Second, the number of features used by each doctor was visualized via a heat map to provide an overview of mEHR usage across feature types and doctors’ specialties. Third, we conducted a path analysis via a Sankey diagram to describe main usage paths and association rule mining to find frequent paths in mEHR usage.ResultsThe physician group logged on most frequently, whereas the OHBP group logged on least frequently. In fact, the number of log-ins per day of residents in the physician group was 4.4 times higher than that of staff members in the other groups. The heat map visualization showed a visible difference among specialty groups. The physician group used more consultation-related features, whereas the surgeon group used more surgery-related features. Generally, 50% of the doctors spent about 15 seconds at a time when using mEHRs. In the Sankey diagram, the physician group showed diverse usage patterns with higher complexity compared with the other 2 groups; in particular, their paths contained more loops, which reflected repetitive checks on multiple patients. The most frequent path included inpatient summary, which means that most users stopped at the point of summary and did not proceed to view more details.ConclusionsThe usage paths of mEHRs showed considerable differences among the specialty groups. Such differences can be accommodated into an mEHR design to enhance the efficiency of care.

BackgroundImproved medical practice efficiency has been demonstrated by physicians using mobile device (mobile phones, tablets) electronic medical record (EMR) systems. However, the quantitative effects of these systems have not been adequately measured.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the effectiveness of near-field communication (NFC) integrated with a mobile EMR system regarding physician turnaround time in a hospital emergency department (ED).MethodsA simulation study was performed in a hospital ED. Twenty-five physicians working in the ED participated in 2 scenarios, using either a mobile device or personal computer (PC). Scenario A involved randomly locating designated patients in the ED. Scenario B consisted of accessing laboratory results of an ED patient at the bedside. After completing the scenarios, participants responded to 10 questions that were scored using a system usability scale (SUS). The primary metric was the turnaround time for each scenario. The secondary metric was the usability of the system, graded by the study participants.ResultsLocating patients from the ED entrance took a mean of 93.0 seconds (SD 34.4) using the mobile scenario. In contrast, it only required a mean of 57.3 seconds (SD 10.5) using the PC scenario (P<.001). Searching for laboratory results of the patients at the bedside required a mean of only 25.2 seconds (SD 5.3) with the mobile scenario, and a mean of 61.5 seconds (SD 11.6) using the PC scenario (P<.001). Sensitivity analysis comparing only the time for login and accessing the relevant information also determined mobile devices to be significantly faster. The mean SUS score of NFC-mobile EMR was 71.90 points.ConclusionsNFC integrated with mobile EMR provided for a more efficient physician practice with good usability.

BACKGROUND With the emergence of mobile devices, mobile electronic health record (mEHR) systems have been utilized by health care professionals (HCPs), including doctors, nurses, and other practitioners, to improve efficiency at the point of care. Although several studies on mEHR systems were conducted, including those analyzing their effects and HCPs’ usage frequency, only a few considered the specific workflows of doctors based on their specialties in which the work process differs greatly. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate the differences in mEHR usage paths across clinical specialties. METHODS We collected the log data of 974 doctors who worked from August 2016 to August 2017 and used the mEHR system at the Samsung Medical Center, one of the biggest hospitals in South Korea. The doctors were classified into 3 groups based on their specialty: the physician, the surgeon, and other hospital-based physician (OHBP) groups. We used various descriptive and visualization methods to understand and compare doctors’ usage paths of mEHRs. First, the average numbers of log-ins per day and features used per log-in were examined over different specialties and positions. Second, the number of features used by each doctor was visualized via a heat map to provide an overview of mEHR usage across feature types and doctors’ specialties. Third, we conducted a path analysis via a Sankey diagram to describe main usage paths and association rule mining to find frequent paths in mEHR usage. RESULTS The physician group logged on most frequently, whereas the OHBP group logged on least frequently. In fact, the number of log-ins per day of residents in the physician group was 4.4 times higher than that of staff members in the other groups. The heat map visualization showed a visible difference among specialty groups. The physician group used more consultation-related features, whereas the surgeon group used more surgery-related features. Generally, 50% of the doctors spent about 15 seconds at a time when using mEHRs. In the Sankey diagram, the physician group showed diverse usage patterns with higher complexity compared with the other 2 groups; in particular, their paths contained more loops, which reflected repetitive checks on multiple patients. The most frequent path included inpatient summary, which means that most users stopped at the point of summary and did not proceed to view more details. CONCLUSIONS The usage paths of mEHRs showed considerable differences among the specialty groups. Such differences can be accommodated into an mEHR design to enhance the efficiency of care.

BACKGROUND With the emergence of mobile devices, mobile electronic medical record (m-EMR) systems have been utilized by clinicians and improved efficiency at the point of care. Although several studies on m-EMR, including analyses on its effects and health providers’ usage frequency, were conducted, only few considered the specific workflows of clinicians based on their specialties in which work process differs greatly. OBJECTIVE This study aims to investigate the differences in m-EMR usage paths across clinical specialties. METHODS We collected the log data of 974 clinicians, who worked from August 2016 to August 2017 and used the m-EMR system at Samsung Medical Center, one of the biggest hospitals in South Korea. The clinicians were classified into three groups based on their specialty: physicians, surgeons, and others. We used various descriptive and visualization methods to understand and compare clinicians’ usage paths of m-EMR. First, the average numbers of log-on per day and contents used per log-on were examined over different specialties and positions. Second, the number of contents used by each clinician was visualized via a heat map to provide an overview of m-EMR usage across content types and clinicians’ specialties. Third, we conducted a path analysis via Sankey diagram, to describe main usage paths, and association rule mining, to find frequent paths in m-EMR usage. RESULTS The physician group logged on most frequently, whereas the other group did least frequently. Especially, the number of log-ons per day of residents in the physician group was 4.4 times higher than that of staff members in the other groups. Heat map visualization showed a visible difference among specialty groups. The physician group used more consult-related contents, whereas the surgeon group, more surgery-related contents. Generally, 50% of the clinicians spent about 15 seconds at a time when using m-EMR. In the Sankey diagram, we observed that the physician group demonstrated more loops, reflecting repetitive checks on multiple patients. Their paths were also diverse with higher complexity compared with the other two groups. The most frequent path included inpatient summary, which means that most users stopped at the point of summary and did not proceed to view more details. CONCLUSIONS The usage paths of m-EMR showed considerable differences among specialty groups. Such differences can be accommodated into an m-EMR design to enhance the efficiency of care. CLINICALTRIAL Clinical Trials: SMC 2017-12-074