Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2016
Interprofessional Communication of Clinicians Using a Mobile Phone App: A Randomized Crossover Trial Using Simulated Patients.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationships among self-reported medical malpractice tendency, smartphone addiction, and job performance in nurses.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Technological Solutions to Improve Inpatient Handover in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Use of the Vula App to refer patients in the West Coast District: A descriptive exploratory qualitative study.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2022Article
- Team Dynamics in Hospital Workflows: An Exploratory Study of a Smartphone Task Manager.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Article
- A Push-to-Talk Application as an Inter-Professional Communication Tool in an Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2021Article
- "The Longest Way Round Is The Shortest Way Home": An Overhaul of Surgical Ward Rounds.World journal of surgery · 2018Review
- The Use of Communication Apps by Medical Staff in the Australian Health Care System: Survey Study on Prevalence and Use.JMIR medical informatics · 2018Article
- The Effect of Screen-to-Screen Versus Face-to-Face Consultation on Doctor-Patient Communication: An Experimental Study with Simulated Patients.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Development and Feasibility of Self-Management Application in Left-Ventricular Assist Devices.ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost hospitals use paging systems as the principal communication system, despite general dissatisfaction by end users. To this end, we developed an app-based communication system (called Hark) to facilitate and improve the quality of interpersonal communication.
objectiveThe objectives of our study were (1) to assess the quality of information transfer using pager- and app-based (Hark) communication systems, (2) to determine whether using mobile phone apps for escalation of care results in additional delays in communication, and (3) to determine how end users perceive mobile phone apps as an alternative to pagers.
methodsWe recruited junior (postgraduate year 1 and 2) doctors and nurses from a range of specialties and randomly assigned them to 2 groups who used either a pager device or the mobile phone-based Hark app. We asked nurses to hand off simulated patients while doctors were asked to receive handoff information using these devices. The quality of information transfer, time taken to respond to messages, and users' satisfaction with each device was recorded. Each participant used both devices with a 2-week washout period in between uses.
resultsWe recruited 22 participants (13 nurses, 9 doctors). The quality of the referrals made by nurses was significantly better when using Hark (Hark median 118, range 100-121 versus pager median 77, range 39-104; P=.001). Doctors responded to messages using Hark more quickly than when responding to pagers, although this difference was not statistically significant (Hark mean 86.6 seconds, SD 96.2 versus pager mean 136.5 seconds, SD 201.0; P=.12). Users rated Hark as significantly better on 11 of the 18 criteria of an information transfer device (P<.05) These included "enhances interprofessional efficiency," "results in less disturbance," "performed desired functions reliably," and "allows me to clearly transfer information."
conclusionsHark improved the quality of transfer of information about simulated patients and was rated by users as more effective and efficient, and less distracting than pagers. Using this device did not result in delay in patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.