Literature review finds no clear advantages of any one device (pagers, smartphones, or Web-based) for acute communication.
Int J Med Inform. 2015;84:101-110.
The use of technology for urgent clinician to clinician communications: a systematic review of the literature.
Nguyen C, McElroy LM, Abecassis MM, Holl JL, Ladner DP. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84:101-110.
Pagers have been a mainstay for urgent clinician–clinician communication for many decades. Increasingly physicians are using a variety of electronic devices, including smartphones and Web-based technologies. This systematic review identified 16 articles that studied different technologies for urgent clinician communication. Each strategy had potential advantages and pitfalls. For example, smartphones are associated with decreased transmission time compared to pagers, but they also result in more clinician interruptions. There is very little evidence linking any specific communication method with benefits for patient care. Future study could more robustly explore which forms of communication are best for clinicians and patients. A prior AHRQ WebM&M commentary describes a case of serious patient harm related to a smartphone interruption.
Can high tech save your life?
Fischman J. US News and World Report. August 1, 2005;139:45,49-50,52.
Smart pumps: advanced capabilities and continuous quality improvement.
Vanderveen T. Patient Saf Quality Healthc. January/February 2007.
The efficacy of computer-enabled discharge communication interventions: a systematic review.
Motamedi SM, Posadas-Calleja J, Straus S, et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:403-415.
STUDYView all related resources...
The care transitions intervention: translating from efficacy to effectiveness.
Voss R, Gardner R, Baier R, Butterfield K, Lehrman S, Gravenstein S. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1232-1237.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario