ArticleBMJ innovations2021
Examining the impact of an asynchronous communication platform versus existing communication methods: an observational study.
Article in BMJ innovations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug-related problems and challenges encountered by pharmacists in nirmatrelvir/ritonavir counselling during the covid-19 pandemic: a multi-center study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Social Network Analysis of Secure Text Messaging Metadata During Clinical Deterioration in an Inpatient Children's Hospital Setting.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Enhancing effective healthcare communication in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: Considerations for research, teaching, policy, and practice.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Use of pager devices in New Zealand public hospitals as a critical communication tool: Barriers & way forward.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Barriers to Adoption of a Secure Text Messaging System: a Qualitative Study of Practicing Clinicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Materiality and the mediating roles of eHealth: A qualitative study and comparison of three cases.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare systems revolve around intricate relations between humans and technology. System efficiency depends on information exchange that occur on synchronous and asynchronous platforms. Traditional synchronous methods of communication may pose risks to workflow integrity and contribute to inefficient service delivery and medical care.
aimTo compare synchronous methods of communication to Medic Bleep, an instant messaging asynchronous platform, and observe its impact on clinical workflow, quality of work life and associations with patient safety outcomes and hospital core operations.
methodsCohorts of healthcare professionals were followed using the Time Motion Study methodology over a 2-week period, using both the asynchronous platform and the synchronous methods like the non-cardiac pager. Questionnaires and interviews were conducted to identify staff attitudes towards both platforms.
resultsA statistically significant figure (p<0.01) of 20.1 minutes' reduction in average task completion was seen with asynchronous communication, saving 58.8% of time when compared with traditional synchronous methods. In subcategory analysis for staff: doctors, nurses and midwifery categories, a p value of <0.0495 and <0.01 were observed; a mean time reduction with statistical significance was also seen in specific task efficiencies of 'To-Take-Out (TTO), patient review, discharge & patient transfer and escalation of care & procedure'. The platform was favoured with an average Likert value of 8.7; 67% found it easy to implement.
conclusionThe asynchronous platform improved clinical communication compared with synchronous methods, contributing to efficiencies in workflow and may positively affect 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.