The use of smartphones on General Internal Medicine wards
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the uses of institutional and personal smartphones on General Internal Medicine wards and highlight potential consequences from their use. METHODS: A mixed methods study consisting of both quantitative and qualitative research methods was conducted in General Internal Medicine wards across four academic teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. Participants included medical students, residents, attending physicians and allied health professionals. Data collection consisted of work shadowing observations, semi-structured interviews and surveys. RESULTS: Personal smartphones were used for both clinical communication and non-work-related activities. Clinicians used their personal devices to communicate with their medical teams and with other medical specialties and healthcare professionals. Participants understood the risks associated with communicating confidential health information via their personal smartphones, but appear to favor efficiency over privacy issues. From survey responses, 9 of 23 residents (39%) reported using their personal cell phones to email or text patient information that may have contained patient identifiers. Although some residents were observed using their personal smartphones for non-work-related activities, personal use was infrequent and most residents did not engage in this activity. CONCLUSION: Clinicians are using personal smartphones for work-related purposes on the wards. With the increasing popularity of smartphone devices, it is anticipated that an increasing number of clinicians will use their personal smartphones for clinical work. This trend poses risks to the secure transfer of confidential personal health information and may lead to increased distractions for clinicians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it