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.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of six treatment strategies for patients diagnosed with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in Canada: 1. oral metronidazole; 2. oral vancomycin; 3.oral fidaxomicin; 4. fecal transplantation by enema; 5. fecal transplantation by nasogastric tube; and 6. fecal transplantation by colonoscopy.PerspectivePublic insurer for all hospital and physician services.SettingOntario, Canada.MethodsA decision analytic model was used to model costs and lifetime health effects of each strategy for a typical patient experiencing up to three recurrences, over 18 weeks. Recurrence data and utilities were obtained from published sources. Cost data was obtained from published sources and hospitals in Toronto, Canada. The willingness-to-pay threshold was $50,000/QALY gained.ResultsFecal transplantation by colonoscopy dominated all other strategies in the base case, as it was less costly and more effective than all alternatives. After accounting for uncertainty in all model parameters, there was an 87% probability that fecal transplantation by colonoscopy was the most beneficial strategy. If colonoscopy was not available, fecal transplantation by enema was cost-effective at $1,708 per QALY gained, compared to metronidazole. In addition, fecal transplantation by enema was the preferred strategy if the probability of recurrence following this strategy was below 8.7%. If fecal transplantation by any means was unavailable, fidaxomicin was cost-effective at an additional cost of $25,968 per QALY gained, compared to metronidazole.ConclusionFecal transplantation by colonoscopy (or enema, if colonoscopy is unavailable) is cost-effective for treating recurrent CDI in Canada. Where fecal transplantation is not available, fidaxomicin is also cost-effective.