Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31199328›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

The Use of Smart Devices by Care Providers in Emergency Departments: Cross-Sectional Survey Design.

Mohamad Alameddine, Hussein Soueidan, Maha Makki, Hani Tamim, Eveline Hitti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The effect of smartphones and mobile apps in Egyptian Emergency Departments: A cross-sectional study.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mohamad AlameddineAmerican University of Beirut, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Management and Policy, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-2299-1242
Hussein SoueidanAmerican University of Beirut, Evidence Based Health Management Unit, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-6635-116X
Maha MakkiAmerican University of Beirut, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0003-4559-0457
Hani TamimAmerican University of Beirut, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-2019-4362
Eveline HittiAmerican University of Beirut, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-9619-6092

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of smart devices (SDs) by health care providers in care settings is a common practice nowadays. Such use includes apps related to patient care and often extends to personal calls and applications with frequent prompts and interruptions. These prompts and interruptions enhance the risk of distractions caused by SDs and raise concerns about service quality and patient safety. Such concerns are exacerbated in complex care settings such as the emergency department (ED).

objectiveThe objective of this study was to measure the frequency and patterns of SD use among health care providers in the ED of a large academic health center in Lebanon. The perceived consequences of care providers using SDs on provider-to-provider communication and the care quality of patients in the ED were assessed. Additionally, factors associated with the use of SDs and the approval for regulating such use were also investigated.

methodsThe study was carried out at the ED of an academic health center with the highest volume of patient visits in Lebanon. The data were collected using a cross-sectional electronic survey sent to all ED health care providers (N=236). The target population included core ED faculty members, attending physicians, residents, medical students, and the nursing care providers. The regression model developed in this study was used to find predictors of medical errors in the ED because of the use of SDs.

resultsHalf of the target population responded to the questionnaire. A total of 83 of 97 respondents (86%) used one or more medical applications on their SDs. 71 out of 87 respondents (82%) believed that using SDs in the ED improved the coordination among the care team, and 71 out of 90 (79%) respondents believed that it was beneficial to patient care. In addition, 37 out of 90 respondents (41%) acknowledged that they were distracted when using their SDs for nonwork purposes. 51 out of 93 respondents (55%) witnessed a colleague committing a near miss or an error owing to the SD-caused distractions. Regression analysis revealed that age (P=.04) and missing information owing to the use of SDs (P=.02) were major predictors of committing an error in the ED. Interestingly, more than 40% of the respondents were significantly addicted to using SDs and more than one-third felt the need to cut down their use.

conclusionsThe findings of this study make it imperative to ensure the safety and wellbeing of patients, especially in high intensity, high volume departments like the ED. Irrespective of the positive role SDs play in the health care process, the negative effects of their use mandate proper regulation, in particular, an ethical mandate that takes into consideration the significant consequences that the use of SDs may have on care processes and outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansLebanonMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceSmartphoneSurveys and Questionnairesemergency departmentshealthcare qualityhealth personnelpolicysmart phones

Identifiers

PMID31199328
PMCPMC6592497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.