BackgroundHospitals today are introducing new mobile apps to improve patient care and workflow processes. Mobile device adoption by hospitals fits with present day technology behavior; however, requires a deeper look into hospital device policies and the impact on patients, staff, and technology development. Should hospitals spend thousands to millions of dollars to equip all personnel with a mobile device that is only used in a hospital environment? Allowing health care professionals to use personal mobile devices at work, known as bring-your-own-device (BYOD), has the potential to support both the hospital and its employees to deliver effective and efficient care.ObjectiveThe objectives of this research were to create a mobile app development guideline for a BYOD hospital environment, apply the guideline to the development of an in-house mobile app called TaskList, pilot the TaskList app within Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH), and refine the guideline based on the app pilot. TaskList is an Apple operating system (iOS)-based app designed for medical residents to monitor, create, capture, and share daily collaborative tasks associated with patients.MethodsTo create the BYOD guidelines, we developed TaskList that required the use of mobile devices among medical resident. The TaskList app was designed in four phases: (1) mobile app guideline development, (2) requirements gathering and developing of TaskList fitting the guideline, (3) deployment of TaskList using BYOD with end-users, and (4) refinement of the guideline based on the TaskList pilot. Phase 1 included understanding the existing hospital BYOD policies and conducting Web searches to find best practices in software development for a BYOD environment. Phase 1 also included gathering subject matter input from the Information Services Department (ISD) at BCH. Phase 2 involved the collaboration between the Innovation Acceleration Program at BCH, the ISD Department and the TaskList Clinical team in understanding what features should be built into the app. Phase 3 involved deployment of TaskList on a clinical floor at BCH. Lastly, Phase 4 gathered the lessons learned from the pilot to refine the guideline.ResultsFourteen practical recommendations were identified to create the BCH Mobile Application Development Guideline to safeguard custom applications in hospital BYOD settings. The recommendations were grouped into four categories: (1) authentication and authorization, (2) data management, (3) safeguarding app environment, and (4) remote enforcement. Following the guideline, the TaskList app was developed and then was piloted with an inpatient ward team.ConclusionsThe Mobile Application Development guideline was created and used in the development of TaskList. The guideline is intended for use by developers when addressing integration with hospital information systems, deploying apps in BYOD health care settings, and meeting compliance standards, such as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations.

PDIs were identified often through hospital-initiated follow-up contact. Most PDIs were related to appointments. Hospitals caring for children may find this information useful as they strive to optimize their processes for follow-up contact after discharge.

No abstract

Objective Digital voice assistant technology provides unique opportunities to enhance clinical practice. We aimed to understand factors influencing pediatric providers' current and potential use of this technology in clinical practice. Methods We surveyed pediatric providers regarding current use and interest in voice technology in the workplace. Regression analyses evaluated provider characteristics associated with voice technology use. Among respondents not interested in voice technology, we elicited individual concerns. Results Among 114 respondents, 19 (16.7%) indicated current use of voice technology in clinical practice, and 51 (44.7%) indicated use of voice technology for nonclinical purposes. Fifty-four (47.4%) reported willingness to try digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting. Providers who had longer clinic visits (odds ratio [OR], 3.11, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04, 9.33, p = 0.04), fewer patient encounters per day (p = 0.02), and worked in hospital-based practices (OR, 2.95, 95% CI, 1.08, 8.07, p = 0.03) were more likely to currently use voice technology in the office. Younger providers (p = 0.02) and those confident in the accuracy of voice technology (OR, 3.05, 95% CI, 1.38, 6.74, p = 0.005) were more willing to trial digital voice assistants in the clinical setting. Among respondents unwilling or unsure about trying voice assistant technology, the most common reasons elicited were concerns related to its accuracy (35%), efficiency (33%), and privacy (28%). Conclusion This national survey evaluating use and attitudes toward digital voice assistant technology by pediatric providers found that while only one-eighth of pediatric providers currently use digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting, almost half are interested in trying it in the future. Younger provider age and confidence in the accuracy of voice technology are associated with provider interest in using voice technology in the clinical setting. Future development of voice technology for clinical use will need to consider accuracy of information, efficiency of use, and patient privacy for successful integration into the workplace.