↓ Skip to main content

Utility of Daily Mobile Tablet Use for Residents on an Otolaryngology Head

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Utility of Daily Mobile Tablet Use for Residents on an Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery Inpatient Service
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10916-015-0419-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew G. Crowson, Russel Kahmke, Marisa Ryan, Richard Scher

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the utility of electronic tablets and their capacity to increase hospital floor productivity, efficiency, improve patient care information safety, and to enhance resident education and resource utilization on a busy Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery inpatient service. This was a prospective cohort study with a 2-week pre-implementation period with standard paper census lists without mobile tablet use, and a 2-week post-implementation period followed with electronic tablets used to place orders, look up pertinent clinical data, educate patients as appropriate, and to record daily to-dos that would previously be recorded on paper. The setting for the study was Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, with 13 Otolaryngology residents comprising the study population. The time for inpatient rounding was shorter with the use tablets (p = 0.037). There was a non-significant trend in the number of times a resident had to leave rounds to look up a clinical query on a computer, with less instances occurring in the post-implementation study period. The residents felt that having a tablet facilitated more detailed and faster transfer of information, and improved ease of documentation in the medical record. Seventy percent felt tablets helped them spend more time with patients, 70 % could spend more time directly involved in rounds because they could use the tablet to query information at point-of-care, and 80 % felt tablets improved morale. The utility of a mobile tablet device coupled with the electronic health record appeared to have both quantitative and qualitative improvements in efficiency, increased time with patients and attendance at academic conferences. Tablets should be encouraged but not mandated for clinical and educational use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Other 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Engineering 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#808
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,659
of 388,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#24
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.