Interprofessional Communication of Clinicians Using a Mobile Phone App: A Randomized Crossover Trial Using Simulated Patients.

Bhavesh Patel, Maximilian Johnston, Natalie Cookson, Dominic King, Sonal Arora, Ara Darzi
Author Information
  1. Bhavesh Patel: Department of Surgery and Cancer, St Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. bhavesh.patel07@imperial.ac.uk. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most hospitals use paging systems as the principal communication system, despite general dissatisfaction by end users. To this end, we developed an app-based communication system (called Hark) to facilitate and improve the quality of interpersonal communication.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were (1) to assess the quality of information transfer using pager- and app-based (Hark) communication systems, (2) to determine whether using mobile phone apps for escalation of care results in additional delays in communication, and (3) to determine how end users perceive mobile phone apps as an alternative to pagers.
METHODS: We recruited junior (postgraduate year 1 and 2) doctors and nurses from a range of specialties and randomly assigned them to 2 groups who used either a pager device or the mobile phone-based Hark app. We asked nurses to hand off simulated patients while doctors were asked to receive handoff information using these devices. The quality of information transfer, time taken to respond to messages, and users' satisfaction with each device was recorded. Each participant used both devices with a 2-week washout period in between uses.
RESULTS: We recruited 22 participants (13 nurses, 9 doctors). The quality of the referrals made by nurses was significantly better when using Hark (Hark median 118, range 100-121 versus pager median 77, range 39-104; P=.001). Doctors responded to messages using Hark more quickly than when responding to pagers, although this difference was not statistically significant (Hark mean 86.6 seconds, SD 96.2 versus pager mean 136.5 seconds, SD 201.0; P=.12). Users rated Hark as significantly better on 11 of the 18 criteria of an information transfer device (P<.05) These included "enhances interprofessional efficiency," "results in less disturbance," "performed desired functions reliably," and "allows me to clearly transfer information."
CONCLUSIONS: Hark improved the quality of transfer of information about simulated patients and was rated by users as more effective and efficient, and less distracting than pagers. Using this device did not result in delay in patient care.

Keywords

References

  1. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2012;9:1b [PMID: 22737094]
  2. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Aug;20(4):486-97 [PMID: 24902627]
  3. N Z Med J. 2010 Oct 15;123(1324):57-66 [PMID: 20953223]
  4. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2015 Feb 07;4(1):53-7 [PMID: 25750727]
  5. Ann Surg. 2010 Jun;251(6):1181-5 [PMID: 20485133]
  6. Surgery. 2015 Jan;157(1):87-95 [PMID: 25482467]
  7. Crit Care Med. 2008 Feb;36(2):477-81 [PMID: 18091535]
  8. J Hosp Med. 2014 Sep;9(9):573-8 [PMID: 25110991]
  9. Br J Surg. 2014 Dec;101(13):1666-73 [PMID: 25350855]
  10. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Sep-Oct;16(5):705-13 [PMID: 19567803]
  11. Acad Med. 2005 Dec;80(12):1094-9 [PMID: 16306279]
  12. J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Apr;204(4):533-40 [PMID: 17382211]
  13. J Interprof Care. 2012 Jul;26(4):276-82 [PMID: 22482742]
  14. BMJ. 1998 Feb 28;316(7132):673-6 [PMID: 9522794]
  15. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Jul-Aug;20(4):766-77 [PMID: 23355461]
  16. Telemed J E Health. 2013 Mar;19(3):150-4 [PMID: 23384333]
  17. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015 Jul;25(5):821-6 [PMID: 25633127]
  18. Am J Surg. 2015 Jan;209(1):45-51 [PMID: 25454952]
  19. Ann Surg. 2009 Dec;250(6):1029-34 [PMID: 19953723]
  20. Acad Med. 2004 Feb;79(2):186-94 [PMID: 14744724]
  21. J Surg Educ. 2011 Nov-Dec;68(6):447-51 [PMID: 22000529]
  22. Lancet. 2004 Mar 20;363(9413):970-7 [PMID: 15043966]
  23. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Jan;24(1):105-10 [PMID: 18958533]
  24. Int J Med Inform. 2012 Nov;81(11):723-32 [PMID: 22727613]
  25. Surgery. 2015 Jul;158(1):85-95 [PMID: 25999255]
  26. Int J Med Inform. 2014 Apr;83(4):278-84 [PMID: 24495802]
  27. Ann Surg. 2016 Mar;263(3):477-86 [PMID: 25775058]
  28. Med Care. 2011 Dec;49(12):1076-81 [PMID: 22002649]
  29. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:121 [PMID: 23110712]
  30. Ann Surg. 2014 Feb;259(2):215-21 [PMID: 23470580]
  31. Surg Endosc. 2013 Mar;27(3):888-94 [PMID: 23052509]
  32. Surgery. 2015 Apr;157(4):752-63 [PMID: 25794627]
  33. J Hosp Med. 2015 Feb;10(2):83-9 [PMID: 25352429]

MeSH Term

Cell Phone
Communication
Cross-Over Studies
Female
Humans
Interprofessional Relations
Male
Medical Staff, Hospital
Mobile Applications
Nursing Staff, Hospital
Patient Handoff
Patient Simulation
Referral and Consultation

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0Harkcommunicationinformationqualitytransferusing2mobilenursespagerdeviceendusersphoneappscarepagersdoctorsrange"Usingsystemssystemapp-based1determineescalationrecruitedusedaskedsimulatedpatientsdevicesmessagessignificantlybettermedianversusP=meansecondsSDratedlessBACKGROUND:hospitalsusepagingprincipaldespitegeneraldissatisfactiondevelopedcalledfacilitateimproveinterpersonalOBJECTIVE:objectivesstudyassesspager-whetherresultsadditionaldelays3perceivealternativeMETHODS:juniorpostgraduateyearspecialtiesrandomlyassignedgroupseitherphone-basedapphandreceivehandofftimetakenrespondusers'satisfactionrecordedparticipant2-weekwashoutperiodusesRESULTS:22participants139referralsmade118100-1217739-104001Doctorsrespondedquicklyrespondingalthoughdifferencestatisticallysignificant866961365201012Users1118criteriaP<05included"enhancesinterprofessionalefficiency"resultsdisturbance"performeddesiredfunctionsreliably"allowsclearly"CONCLUSIONS:improvedeffectiveefficientdistractingresultdelaypatientInterprofessionalCommunicationCliniciansMobilePhoneApp:RandomizedCrossoverTrialSimulatedPatientsapplicationssimulation

Similar Articles

Cited By