DOCSS: doctors on-call smartphone study

O’Reilly, Martin; Nason, G. J.; Liddy, Stephen; Fitzgerald, Conall; Kelly, Michael E.; Shields, Conor

doi:10.1007/s11845-013-1053-4

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To the best of our knowledge no previous study has included a smartphone as a handheld device although it was the most frequent one used by the specialists taking part in this study (70% used a smartphone at least once a month for teleconsultation) and may also be among medical professionals in general. 17 The computer screen's spatial resolution was lower than that of the handheld devices and this may be one of the reasons why it received a lower quality rating. However, spatial resolution is just one of the technical features that come into play when looking at display quality 18 and its importance may depend on the type of image.…”

Section: Discussion Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Image-based teleconsultation using smartphones or tablets: qualitative assessment of medical experts

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMobile health has promising potential in improving healthcare delivery by facilitating access to expert advice. Enabling experts to review images on their smartphone or tablet may save valuable time. This study aims at assessing whether images viewed by medical specialists on handheld devices such as smartphones and tablets are perceived to be of comparable quality as when viewed on a computer screen.MethodsThis was a prospective study comparing the perceived quality of 18 images on three different display devices (smartphone, tablet and computer) by 27 participants (4 burn surgeons and 23 emergency medicine specialists). The images, presented in random order, covered clinical (dermatological conditions, burns, ECGs and X-rays) and non-clinical subjects and their perceived quality was assessed using a 7-point Likert scale. Differences in devices' quality ratings were analysed using linear regression models for clustered data adjusting for image type and participants’ characteristics (age, gender and medical specialty).ResultsOverall, the images were rated good or very good in most instances and more so for the smartphone (83.1%, mean score 5.7) and tablet (78.2%, mean 5.5) than for a standard computer (70.6%, mean 5.2). Both handheld devices had significantly higher ratings than the computer screen, even after controlling for image type and participants' characteristics. Nearly all experts expressed that they would be comfortable using smartphones (n=25) or tablets (n=26) for image-based teleconsultation.ConclusionThis study suggests that handheld devices could be a substitute for computer screens for teleconsultation by physicians working in emergency settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Image-based teleconsultation using smartphones or tablets: qualitative assessment of medical experts

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For professional users, in spite of their prevalence, there has so far been little research supporting the use of mobile smart devices, a point also noted (albeit for emergency medicine) in [ 10 ]; available studies with similar aims regarding use of mobile devices by physicians are often either somewhat dated, at least considering the rapid developments in mobile technology [ 22 - 24 ], or they only consider a narrow angle [ 25 , 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile Technologies: Expectancy, Usage, and Acceptance of Clinical Staff and Patients at a University Medical Center

Illiger¹,

Hupka²,

Jan³

et al. 2014

JMIR mHealth uHealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite their increasing popularity, little is known about how users perceive mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet PCs in medical contexts. Available studies are often restricted to evaluating the success of specific interventions and do not adequately cover the users’ basic attitudes, for example, their expectations or concerns toward using mobile devices in medical settings.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to obtain a comprehensive picture, both from the perspective of the patients, as well as the doctors, regarding the use and acceptance of mobile devices within medical contexts in general well as the perceived challenges when introducing the technology.MethodsDoctors working at Hannover Medical School (206/1151, response 17.90%), as well as patients being admitted to this facility (213/279, utilization 76.3%) were surveyed about their acceptance and use of mobile devices in medical settings. Regarding demographics, both samples were representative of the respective study population. GNU R (version 3.1.1) was used for statistical testing. Fisher’s exact test, two-sided, alpha=.05 with Monte Carlo approximation, 2000 replicates, was applied to determine dependencies between two variables.ResultsThe majority of participants already own mobile devices (doctors, 168/206, 81.6%; patients, 110/213, 51.6%). For doctors, use in a professional context does not depend on age (P=.66), professional experience (P=.80), or function (P=.34); gender was a factor (P=.009), and use was more common among male (61/135, 45.2%) than female doctors (17/67, 25%). A correlation between use of mobile devices and age (P=.001) as well as education (P=.002) was seen for patients. Minor differences regarding how mobile devices are perceived in sensitive medical contexts mostly relate to data security, patients are more critical of the devices being used for storing and processing patient data; every fifth patient opposed this, but nevertheless, 4.8% of doctors (10/206) use their devices for this purpose. Both groups voiced only minor concerns about the credibility of the provided content or the technical reliability of the devices. While 8.3% of the doctors (17/206) avoided use during patient contact because they thought patients might be unfamiliar with the devices, (25/213) 11.7% of patients expressed concerns about the technology being too complicated to be used in a health context.ConclusionsDifferences in how patients and doctors perceive the use of mobile devices can be attributed to age and level of education; these factors are often mentioned as contributors of the problems with (mobile) technologies. To fully realize the potential of mobile technologies in a health care context, the needs of both the elderly as well as those who are educationally disadvantaged need to be carefully addressed in all strategies relating to mobile technology in a health context.

show abstract

“…However, the great majority of medical apps used by medical professionals remain unregulated. Several studies have further characterized the clinical applications of smartphones, including information gathering, communication between providers, and tracking usage by interns [ 8 - 10 ]. One study highlighted the perils of smartphone use during inpatient rounds, including distraction [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergency medicine and internal medicine trainees’ smartphone use in clinical settings in the United States

Raaum

Arbelaez

Vallejo-Bocanumen

et al. 2015

J Educ Eval Health Prof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:Smartphone technology offers a multitude of applications (apps) that provide a wide range of functions for healthcare professionals. Medical trainees are early adopters of this technology, but how they use smartphones in clinical care remains unclear. Our objective was to further characterize smartphone use by medical trainees at two United States academic institutions, as well as their prior training in the clinical use of smartphones.Methods:In 2014, we surveyed 347 internal medicine and emergency medicine resident physicians at the University of Utah and Brigham and Women’s Hospital about their smartphone use and prior training experiences. Scores (0%–100%) were calculated to assess the frequency of their use of general features (email, text) and patient-specific apps, and the results were compared according to resident level and program using the Mann-Whitney U-test.Results:A total of 184 residents responded (response rate, 53.0%). The average score for using general features, 14.4/20 (72.2%) was significantly higher than the average score for using patient-specific features and apps, 14.1/44 (33.0%, P<0.001). The average scores for the use of general features, were significantly higher for year 3–4 residents, 15.0/20 (75.1%) than year 1–2 residents, 14.1/20 (70.5%, P=0.035), and for internal medicine residents, 14.9/20 (74.6%) in comparison to emergency medicine residents, 12.9/20 (64.3%, P= 0.001). The average score reflecting the use of patient-specific apps was significantly higher for year 3–4 residents, 16.1/44 (36.5%) than for year 1–2 residents, 13.7/44 (31.1%; P=0.044). Only 21.7% of respondents had received prior training in clinical smartphone use.Conclusion:Residents used smartphones for general features more frequently than for patient-specific features, but patient-specific use increased with training. Few residents have received prior training in the clinical use of smartphones.

show abstract

DOCSS: doctors on-call smartphone study

Abstract: Smartphone usage is widespread among our intern cohort. The introduction of hospital applications with local guidelines would be welcomed; however, this may require informed patient consent regarding their use.

Cited by 20 publications

References 18 publications

Image-based teleconsultation using smartphones or tablets: qualitative assessment of medical experts

Image-based teleconsultation using smartphones or tablets: qualitative assessment of medical experts

Mobile Technologies: Expectancy, Usage, and Acceptance of Clinical Staff and Patients at a University Medical Center

Emergency medicine and internal medicine trainees’ smartphone use in clinical settings in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About