OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify, describe and assess interventions of information and communication technology on the processes of communication and associated patient outcomes within hospital settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies published from the years 1996 to 2010 were considered and were selected if they described an evaluation of information and communication technology interventions to improve clinical communication within hospitals. Two authors abstracted data from full text articles, and the quality of individual articles were appraised. Results of interventions were summarized by their effect. RESULTS: There were 18 identified studies that evaluated the use of interventions that included alphanumeric paging, hands-free communication devices, mobile phones, smartphones, task management systems and a display based paging system. Most quantitative studies used a before and after study design and were of lower quality. Of all the studies, there was only one prospective randomized study, but this study used only simulated communication events. Quantitative studies identified improved perceptions of communication and some improvement in communication metrics. Qualitative studies described improvements in efficiency of communication but also issues of loss of control and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rapid advancement in information and communications technology over the last decade, there is limited evidence suggesting improvements in the ability of health professionals to communicate effectively. Given the critical nature of communication, we advocate further evaluation of information and communication technology designed to improve communication between clinicians. Outcome measures should include measures of patient-oriented outcomes and efficiency for clinicians.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify, describe and assess interventions of information and communication technology on the processes of communication and associated patient outcomes within hospital settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies published from the years 1996 to 2010 were considered and were selected if they described an evaluation of information and communication technology interventions to improve clinical communication within hospitals. Two authors abstracted data from full text articles, and the quality of individual articles were appraised. Results of interventions were summarized by their effect. RESULTS: There were 18 identified studies that evaluated the use of interventions that included alphanumeric paging, hands-free communication devices, mobile phones, smartphones, task management systems and a display based paging system. Most quantitative studies used a before and after study design and were of lower quality. Of all the studies, there was only one prospective randomized study, but this study used only simulated communication events. Quantitative studies identified improved perceptions of communication and some improvement in communication metrics. Qualitative studies described improvements in efficiency of communication but also issues of loss of control and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rapid advancement in information and communications technology over the last decade, there is limited evidence suggesting improvements in the ability of health professionals to communicate effectively. Given the critical nature of communication, we advocate further evaluation of information and communication technology designed to improve communication between clinicians. Outcome measures should include measures of patient-oriented outcomes and efficiency for clinicians.
Authors: Lisa M McElroy; Elizabeth Z Gillett; Cristina Nguyen; Jane L Holl; Michael M Abecassis; Daniela P Ladner Journal: Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) Date: 2016-02-26
Authors: Guy Martin; Ankur Khajuria; Sonal Arora; Dominic King; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Cristina Nguyen; Lisa M McElroy; Michael M Abecassis; Jane L Holl; Daniela P Ladner Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Pascale Carayon; Tosha B Wetterneck; Bashar Alyousef; Roger L Brown; Randi S Cartmill; Kerry McGuire; Peter L T Hoonakker; Jason Slagle; Kara S Van Roy; James M Walker; Matthew B Weinger; Anping Xie; Kenneth E Wood Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Agustín Ciapponi; Simon Lewin; Cristian A Herrera; Newton Opiyo; Tomas Pantoja; Elizabeth Paulsen; Gabriel Rada; Charles S Wiysonge; Gabriel Bastías; Lilian Dudley; Signe Flottorp; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Sebastian Garcia Marti; Claire Glenton; Charles I Okwundu; Blanca Peñaloza; Fatima Suleman; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-09-13
Authors: Colin Walsh; Eugenia L Siegler; Erin Cheston; Heather O'Donnell; Sarah Collins; Daniel Stein; David K Vawdrey; Peter D Stetson Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Sarah Shrader; Matthew Kostoff; Tiffany Shin; Annie Heble; Brian Kempin; Astyn Miller; Nick Patykiewicz Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 2.047