BACKGROUND: As technology is increasingly being integrated into hospital-based care, it is important to assess patient experiences. The purpose of this project was to conduct an evaluation of inpatient experiences with MyChart® Bedside. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convenience sample of patients (n = 88) were included in this study, who responded to a Web-based self-reported survey that was embedded within the MyChart Bedside application. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (78%) reported that MyChart Bedside was easy to use. The respondents agreed that MyChart Bedside improved communication with their nurses (74%) and with their physicians (53%), as well as helped them understand their medications (90%) during their inpatient hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that the majority of patients were satisfied with MyChart Bedside, and they reported that it helped them learn more about their medications, as well as communicate with their care team.
BACKGROUND: As technology is increasingly being integrated into hospital-based care, it is important to assess patient experiences. The purpose of this project was to conduct an evaluation of inpatient experiences with MyChart® Bedside. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convenience sample of patients (n = 88) were included in this study, who responded to a Web-based self-reported survey that was embedded within the MyChart Bedside application. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (78%) reported that MyChart Bedside was easy to use. The respondents agreed that MyChart Bedside improved communication with their nurses (74%) and with their physicians (53%), as well as helped them understand their medications (90%) during their inpatient hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that the majority of patients were satisfied with MyChart Bedside, and they reported that it helped them learn more about their medications, as well as communicate with their care team.
Entities:
Keywords:
information technology; patient satisfaction; tablets; telemedicine
Authors: Richard Hillestad; James Bigelow; Anthony Bower; Federico Girosi; Robin Meili; Richard Scoville; Roger Taylor Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin; Matthew F Burke; Michael C Hoaglin; David Blumenthal Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Monica S C Morgan; Jodi A Antonelli; Yair Lotan; Nabeel Shakir; Nicholas Kavoussi; Adam Cohen; Margaret S Pearle Journal: J Endourol Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Lynne I Wagner; Julian Schink; Michael Bass; Shalini Patel; Maria Varela Diaz; Nan Rothrock; Timothy Pearman; Richard Gershon; Frank J Penedo; Steven Rosen; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ronen Rozenblum; Jacques Donzé; Peter M Hockey; Eddie Guzdar; Michael A Labuzetta; Eyal Zimlichman; David W Bates Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: David E Gerber; Andrew L Laccetti; Beibei Chen; Jingsheng Yan; Jennifer Cai; Samantha Gates; Yang Xie; Simon J Craddock Lee Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Lisa V Grossman; Ruth M Masterson Creber; Jessica S Ancker; Beatriz Ryan; Fernanda Polubriaginof; Min Qian; Irma Alarcon; Susan Restaino; Suzanne Bakken; George Hripcsak; David K Vawdrey Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: S Ryan Greysen; James D Harrison; Charles Rareshide; Yimdriuska Magan; Neil Seghal; Jaime Rosenthal; Ronald Jacolbia; Andrew D Auerbach Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Daniel M Walker; Jennifer L Hefner; Cynthia J Sieck; Timothy R Huerta; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Gretchen P Jackson; Jamie R Robinson; Ebone Ingram; Mary Masterman; Catherine Ivory; Diane Holloway; Shilo Anders; Robert M Cronin Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497