The use of smartphones in general and internal medicine units: A boon or a bane to the promotion of interprofessional collaboration?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective communication and coordination are critical components for improving collaborative care delivery among different healthcare providers who work in mobile and time-pressured environments. Increasingly, healthcare providers are exploring alternative communication technologies to help bridge the temporal and spatial issues that are often inherent in the clinical communication conundrum. Our study examined perceptions of General Internal Medicine (GIM) staff on the usage of Smartphone devices and a Webpaging system, which were implemented on the inpatient GIM units at two teaching hospitals in North America. An exploratory case study approach was employed and in-depth interviews with 31 clinicians were conducted. This data-set serves as a subset and prelude to a larger research study that examined and compared the impacts of different types of communication technologies used in five teaching hospitals. Findings from our study indicate that the use of Smartphone technology was well received among clinicians. Specifically, healthcare professionals valued the use of emails when communicating nonurgent issues and the availability of the phone function that enabled access to clinicians especially in urgent situations. Dissatisfaction, however, was expressed over the suitability of these smartphone features in different communication contexts as well as discrepancies between clinicians over the appropriate use of the communication modes. Future interventions in communication technology should take into considerations how communication mediums and situational contexts (e.g. urgent and nonurgent patient issues) impact interprofessional interactions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".