scholarly journals A pilot study exploring the relationship between the use of mobile technologies, walking distance, and clinical decision making among rural hospital nurses

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 1163-1169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monique Sedgwick ◽  
Olu Awosoga ◽  
Lance Grigg

Providing evidence-based information at the point of care for time-poor nurses may lead to better clinical care and patient outcomes. Smartphone applications (apps) have the advantage of providing immediate access to information potentially increasing time spent with patients. This small-scale pre-post survey study explored the impact a smartphone app had on the distance nurses walked and their perceived clinical decision-making ability. A total of 20 nurses working in a rural hospital medical/surgical unit participated. The findings suggest that the use of the smartphone app did not decrease nurses’ walking distance. Nor did using the app enhances nurses’ perception of their clinical decision-making ability. However, there was a statistically significant increase in confidence in the app over time (F(1,16) = 5.416, p = 0.033, partial η2= 0.253), suggesting that providing training opportunities including time to learn how to use smartphone applications has the potential to enhance nurses work.

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha I. Preddie

A review of: Marshall, Joanne Gard. “The Impact of the Hospital Library on Clinical Decision Making: the Rochester Study.” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 80.2 (1992): 169-78. Objective – To determine the impact of hospital library services on clinical decision making. Design – A descriptive survey. Setting – Fifteen hospitals in the Rochester area of New York, United States of America. Seven hospitals were in the city of Rochester, and eight were in surrounding rural communities. Subjects – Active physicians and residents affiliated with the Rochester hospitals. Methods – This study built upon the methodology used in an earlier study by D. N. King of the contribution of hospital libraries to clinical care in Chicago. Lists were compiled of all the active physicians and residents who were affiliated with the Rochester hospitals. In order to ensure that there was a reasonable number of participants from each hospital, and that librarians in hospitals with larger numbers of staff were not overburdened with requests, predetermined percentages were set for the sample: 10% of active physicians from hospitals with more than 25 medical staff members, 30% from hospitals with less staff, and 30% of residents and rural physicians. This resulted in a desirable sample size of 448. A systematic sample with a random start was then drawn from each hospital’s list, and physicians and residents were recruited until the sample size was achieved. Participants were asked to request information related to a clinical case from their hospital library, and to evaluate its impact on patient care, by responding to a two-page questionnaire. Main results – Based on usable questionnaires, there was an overall response rate of 46.4% (208 of 448). Eighty percent of the respondents stated that they probably (48%) or definitely (32.4%) handled a clinical situation differently due to the information received from the library. In terms of the specific aspects of care for which changes were made, 71.6% reported a change in advice given to the patient, 59.6% cited a change in treatment, 50.5% a change in diagnostic tests, 45.2% a change in drugs, and 38.5% a change in post-hospital care or treatment. Physicians credited the information provided by the library as contributing to their ability to avoid additional tests and procedures (49%), additional outpatient visits (26.4%), surgery (21.2%), patient mortality (19.2%), hospital admission (11.5%), and hospital-acquired infections (8.2%). In response to a question about the importance of several sources of information, the library received the highest rating amidst other sources including lab tests, diagnostic imaging, and discussions with colleagues. Conclusion – This study validates earlier research findings that physicians view the information provided by hospital libraries as having a significant impact on clinical decision making. Library supplied information influences changes to specific aspects of care as well as the avoidance of adverse events for patients. The significance of this influence is underscored by the finding that relative to other sources, information obtained from the hospital library was rated more highly.


2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Suzanne Pamela Lewis

A review of: Dee, Cheryl R., Marilyn Teolis, and Andrew D. Todd. “Physicians’ use of the personal digital assistant (PDA) in clinical decision making.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 93.4 (October 2005): 480-6. Objective – To examine how frequently attending physicians and physicians in training (medical students, interns and residents) used PDAs for patient care and to explore physicians’ perceptions of the impact of PDA use on several aspects of clinical care. Design – User study via a questionnaire. Setting – Teaching hospitals in Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania in the United States. Subjects – A convenience sample of fifty-nine attending physicians and forty-nine physicians in training (108 total), spread unevenly across the five states. Methods – Subjects were recruited by librarians at teaching hospitals to answer a questionnaire which was distributed and collected at medical meetings, as well as by email, mail, and fax. The subjects were required to have and use a PDA, but prior training on PDA use was not a requirement, nor was it offered to the subjects before the study. Most of the questions required the respondent to choose from five Likert scale answers regarding frequency of PDA use: almost always, often, a few times, rarely, or never. In the reporting of results, the options ‘almost always’ and ‘often’ were combined and reported as ‘frequent’, and the options ‘a few times’ and ‘rarely’, were combined and reported as ‘occasional’. Subjects could also record comments for each question, but only for affirmative responses. Subjects were asked about their frequency of PDA use before, during, or after a patient encounter. They were also asked if PDA use had influenced one or more of five aspects of clinical care – decision making, diagnosis, treatment, test ordering, and in-patient hospital length of stay. Data analysis included chi square tests to assess differences between attending physicians and physicians in training regarding frequency of PDA use and the influence of PDA use on the five aspects of clinical care. The subject population was also divided into frequent and occasional users of PDAs, and chi square testing was used to assess differences between these two groups regarding the influence of PDA use on clinical care. A significance value of P


2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimee Dietz ◽  
Wendy Quach ◽  
Shelley K. Lund ◽  
Miechelle McKelvey

2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (11) ◽  
pp. 1599-1602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Lankshear ◽  
John Srigley ◽  
Thomas McGowan ◽  
Marta Yurcan ◽  
Carol Sawka

Context.—Cancer Care Ontario implemented synoptic pathology reporting across Ontario, impacting the practice of pathologists, surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists. The benefits of standardized synoptic pathology reporting include enhanced completeness and improved consistency in comparison with narrative reports, with reported challenges including increased workload and report turnaround time. Objective.—To determine the impact of synoptic pathology reporting on physician satisfaction specific to practice and process. Design.—A descriptive, cross-sectional design was utilized involving 970 clinicians across 27 hospitals. An 11-item survey was developed to obtain information regarding timeliness, completeness, clarity, and usability. Open-ended questions were also employed to obtain qualitative comments. Results.—A 51% response rate was obtained, with descriptive statistics reporting that physicians perceive synoptic reports as significantly better than narrative reports. Correlation analysis revealed a moderately strong, positive relationship between respondents' perceptions of overall satisfaction with the level of information provided and perceptions of completeness for clinical decision making (r = 0.750, P < .001) and ease of finding information for clinical decision making (r = 0.663, P < .001). Dependent t tests showed a statistically significant difference in the satisfaction scores of pathologists and oncologists (t169 = 3.044, P = .003). Qualitative comments revealed technology-related issues as the most frequently cited factor impacting timeliness of report completion. Conclusion.—This study provides evidence of strong physician satisfaction with synoptic cancer pathology reporting as a clinical decision support tool in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah J Cohen ◽  
Sara R Keller ◽  
Gillian R Hayes ◽  
David A Dorr ◽  
Joan S Ash ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Carlisle ◽  
H. A. Watson ◽  
J. Carter ◽  
K. Kuhrt ◽  
P. T. Seed ◽  
...  

Abstract Background As the vast majority of women who present in threatened preterm labour (TPTL) will not deliver early, clinicians need to balance the risks of over-medicalising the majority of women, against the potential risk of preterm delivery for those discharged home. The QUiPP app is a free, validated app which can support clinical decision-making as it produces individualised risks of delivery within relevant timeframes. Recent evidence has highlighted that clinicians would welcome a decision-support tool that accurately predicts preterm birth. Methods Qualitative interviews were undertaken as part of the EQUIPTT study (The Evaluation of the QUiPP app for Triage and Transfer) (REC: 17/LO/1802) which aimed to evaluate the impact of the QUiPP app on management of TPTL. Individual semi-structured telephone interviews were used to explore clinicians’ (obstetricians’ and midwives’) experiences of using the QUiPP app and how it was implemented at their hospital sites. Thematic analysis was chosen to explore the meaning of the data, through a framework approach. Results Nineteen participants from 10 hospital sites in England took part. Data analysis revealed three overarching themes which were: ‘experience of using the app’, ‘how QUiPP risk changes practice’ and ‘successfully adopting QUiPP: context is everything’. With these final themes we appeared to have achieved our aim of exploring the clinicians’ experiences of using and implementing the QUiPP app. Conclusion This study explored different clinician’s experiences of implementing the app. The organizational and cultural context at different sites appeared to have a large impact on how well the QUiPP app was implemented. Future work needs to be undertaken to understand how best to embed the intervention within different settings. This will inform scale up of QUiPP app use across the UK and ensure that clinicians have access to this free, easy-to-use tool which can positively aid clinical decision making when caring for women in TPTL. Clinical trial registry and registration number ISRCTN 17846337, registered 08th January 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17846337.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Scott ◽  
Elisavet Andrikopoulou ◽  
Haythem Nakkas ◽  
Paul Roderick

Background: The overall evidence for the impact of electronic information systems on cost, quality and safety of healthcare remains contested. Whilst it seems intuitively obvious that having more data about a patient will improve care, the mechanisms by which information availability is translated into better decision-making are not well understood. Furthermore, there is the risk of data overload creating a negative outcome. There are situations where a key information summary can be more useful than a rich record. The Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) is a shared electronic health record for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight that combines key information from hospital, general practice, community care and social services. Its purpose is to provide clinical and care professionals with complete, accurate and up-to-date information when caring for patients. CHIE is used by GP out-of-hours services, acute hospital doctors, ambulance service, GPs and others in caring for patients. Research questions: The fundamental question was How does awareness of CHIE or usage of CHIE affect clinical decision-making? The secondary questions were What are the latent benefits of CHIE in frontline NHS operations? and What is the potential of CHIE to have an impact on major NHS cost pressures? The NHS funders decided to focus on acute medical inpatient admissions as the initial scope, given the high costs associated with hospital stays and the patient complexities (and therefore information requirements) often associated with unscheduled admissions. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals to explore their experience about the utility of CHIE in their clinical scenario, whether and how it has affected their decision-making practices and the barriers and facilitators for their use of CHIE. The Framework Method was used for qualitative analysis, supported by the software tool Atlas.ti. Results: 21 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Three main functions were identified as useful: extensive medication prescribing history, information sharing between primary, secondary and social care and access to laboratory test results. We inferred two positive cognitive mechanisms: knowledge confidence and collaboration assurance, and three negative ones: consent anxiety, search anxiety and data mistrust. Conclusions: CHIE gives clinicians the bigger picture to understand the patient's health and social care history and circumstances so as to make confident and informed decisions. CHIE is very beneficial for medicines reconciliation on admission, especially for patients that are unable to speak or act for themselves or who cannot remember their precise medication or allergies. We found no clear evidence that CHIE has a significant impact on admission or discharge decisions. We propose the use of recommender systems to help clinicians navigate such large volumes of patient data, which will only grow as additional data is collected.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi197-vi198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Coomans ◽  
Martin Taphoorn ◽  
Neil Aaronson ◽  
Brigitta Baumert ◽  
Martin van den Bent ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome in glioma research, reflecting the impact of disease and treatment on a patient’s functioning and wellbeing. Data on changes in HRQoL scores provide important information for clinical decision-making, but different analytical methods may lead to different interpretations of the impact of treatment on HRQoL. This study aimed to study whether different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL result in different interpretations. Methods: HRQoL and sociodemographical/clinical data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined. Change in HRQoL scores was analyzed: (1)at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms over time, (2)at the patient level per scale/item by calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved or remained stable on a scale/item per scale/item, and (3)at the individual patient level combining all scales/items. Results: Data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level (method 1), only the item ‘hair loss’ showed a significant and clinically relevant change (i.e. ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items showed a statistically significant change only (all p< .001, range in change score:0.1–6.2). Analyses on the patient level per scale (method 2) indicated that, while a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range:27–84%), many patients deteriorated (range:6–43%) or improved (range:8–32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level (method 3), the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, while only 1% of the patients remained stable on all scales. Conclusion: Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct interpretations of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for clinical decision-making. Additional information about the joint impact of treatment on all outcomes may help patients and physicians to make the best treatment decision.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document