» Articles » PMID: 9929198

Preferences of Interns and Residents for E-mail, Paging, or Traditional Methods for the Delivery of Different Types of Clinical Information

Overview
Journal Proc AMIA Symp
Date 1999 Feb 3
PMID 9929198
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We elicited from medical house staff their preferences for e-mail and alphanumeric pager as communication channels for the delivery of 18 different types of clinical information about their inpatients. For each type, we calculated the proportion of users who preferred delivery by e-mail, pager, both, or neither (usual delivery). For 14/18 (78%) types, more users preferred delivery by pager than by the other options. For 2/18 (11%) types, e-mail was preferred. For 2/18 (11%) types, more users preferred redundant delivery using both channels. For no types did more users prefer neither, meaning that the information would be delivered by traditional channels, if any. We conclude that medical house staff in the inpatient setting prefer to receive many types of clinical information by pager. The reason may be that they otherwise would have to query clinical information systems for these data, which is wasteful of their time and introduces delays into the process of care. Additionally, we found significant inter-user variability, suggesting that it may be useful for the notification services of an enterprise to employ user profiles for the delivery of clinical information.

Citing Articles

Asynchronous automated electronic laboratory result notifications: a systematic review.

Slovis B, Nahass T, Salmasian H, Kuperman G, Vawdrey D J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017; 24(6):1173-1183.

PMID: 28520977 PMC: 7787253. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocx047.


Comparison of methods of alert acknowledgement by critical care clinicians in the ICU setting.

Harrison A, Thongprayoon C, Aakre C, Jeng J, Dziadzko M, Gajic O PeerJ. 2017; 5:e3083.

PMID: 28316887 PMC: 5354075. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3083.


Development and Implementation of Sepsis Alert Systems.

Harrison A, Gajic O, Pickering B, Herasevich V Clin Chest Med. 2016; 37(2):219-29.

PMID: 27229639 PMC: 4884325. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccm.2016.01.004.


Interruptions to clinical work: how frequent is too frequent?.

Westbrook J J Grad Med Educ. 2014; 5(2):337-9.

PMID: 24404286 PMC: 3693707. DOI: 10.4300/JGME-D-13-00076.1.


The intended and unintended consequences of communication systems on general internal medicine inpatient care delivery: a prospective observational case study of five teaching hospitals.

Wu R, Lo V, Morra D, Wong B, Sargeant R, Locke K J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(4):766-77.

PMID: 23355461 PMC: 3721154. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001160.


References
1.
Tierney W, Miller M, McDonald C . The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1990; 322(21):1499-504. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199005243222105. View

2.
Campbell J, Szilagyi P, Rodewald L, Doane C, Roghmann K . Patient-specific reminder letters and pediatric well-child-care show rates. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1994; 33(5):268-72. DOI: 10.1177/000992289403300503. View

3.
Tierney W, Miller M, Overhage J, McDonald C . Physician inpatient order writing on microcomputer workstations. Effects on resource utilization. JAMA. 1993; 269(3):379-83. View

4.
Hripcsak G, Clayton P, Jenders R, Cimino J, Johnson S . Design of a clinical event monitor. Comput Biomed Res. 1996; 29(3):194-221. DOI: 10.1006/cbmr.1996.0016. View

5.
Kuperman G, Teich J, Bates D, Hiltz F, Hurley J, Lee R . Detecting alerts, notifying the physician, and offering action items: a comprehensive alerting system. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996; :704-8. PMC: 2233134. View