ArticleBMJ open2016
Can a mobile app improve the quality of patient care provided by trainee doctors? Analysis of trainees' case reports.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cardiology Handbook App to Improve Medical Education for Internal Medicine Residents: Development and Usability Study.JMIR medical education · 2020Article
- The role of the smartphone in the transition from medical student to foundation trainee: a qualitative interview and focus group study.BMC medical education · 2018Article
- Developing the Medication Reminder Mobile Application "Seeb".Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2017Article
- Impact of Mobile Device-Based Clinical Decision Support Tool on Guideline Adherence and Mental Workload.Academic pediatricsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore how a medical textbook app ('iDoc') supports newly qualified doctors in providing high-quality patient care.
designThe iDoc project, funded by the Wales Deanery, provides new doctors with an app which gives access to key medical textbooks. Participants' submitted case reports describing self-reported accounts of specific instances of app use. The size of the data set enabled analysis of a subsample of 'complex' case reports. Of the 568 case reports submitted by Foundation Year 1s (F1s)/Year 2s (F2s), 142 (25%) detailed instances of diagnostic decision-making and were identified as 'complex'. We analysed these data against the Quality Improvement (QI) Framework using thematic content analysis.
settingClinical settings across Wales, UK.
participantsNewly qualified doctors (2012-2014; n=114), F1 and F2.
interventionsThe iDoc app, powered by Dr Companion software, provided newly qualified doctors in Wales with a selection of key medical textbooks via individuals' personal smartphone.
resultsDoctors' use of the iDoc app supported 5 of the 6 QI elements: efficiency, timeliness, effectiveness, safety and patient-centredness. None of the case reports were coded to the equity element. Efficiency was the element which attracted the highest number of case report references. We propose that the QI Framework should be expanding to include 'learning' as a 7th element.
conclusionsAccess to key medical textbooks via an app provides trusted and valuable support to newly qualified doctors during a period of transition. On the basis of these doctors' self-reported accounts, our evidence indicates that the use of the app enhances efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness of patient-care in addition consolidating a safe, patient-centred approach. We propose that there is scope to extend the QI Framework by incorporating 'learning' as a 7th element in recognition of the relationship between providing high-quality care through educational engagement.
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.