Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37560695›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2023

Use of pager devices in New Zealand public hospitals as a critical communication tool: Barriers & way forward.

Ehsan Ullah, Mirza Mansoor Baig, Hamid GholamHosseini, Jun Lu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Ehsan UllahAuckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand.
Mirza Mansoor BaigData Science Team, Orion Health, Auckland, New Zealand.
Hamid GholamHosseiniSchool of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Jun LuAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyse the current use, identify challenges and barriers and propose a way forward for the use of the pager devices in the in-hospital communications. Methods: Initially, 447 studies were identified through database searching. After checking against the eligibility, 39 studies were included. Full-text records were retrieved and reviewed by two authors. After excluding unrelated studies and duplicate records, a total of 12 articles were selected for the final review. Results: The use of pagers often lacks standardisation, content, format, urgency level, and clarity within the message. Some studies reported that medical staff preferred in-person interactions with consults instead of communicating over the phone or pagers. Productive communication can reduce the turnaround time by up to 50%. The key challenges are; (1) data security and privacy, (2) timely acknowledgement of received communication, (3) lack of two-way communications causing issues in critical care situations and (4) there is no standard process for the in-hospital communications. Conclusion: We found that the clinicians' age, experience, speciality and preferences greatly matter and influence the selection of tools and technology in healthcare. With revolutionary advances in technology, smartphones have inevitably become beneficial to healthcare, owing to multiple instant messaging applications (apps) that can streamline encrypted clinical communication between medical teams and could be safely used for in-hospital communications.

Indexed as

Healthcare technologyIn-hospital communicationPager devicesPaging system

Identifiers

PMID37560695
PMCPMC10407125

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.