ArticleBMJ open quality2023
Texting is caring: a content analysis of clinical text messages by hospitalists.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emoji in clinical messaging: results of a focus group study.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of text messages in the adherence to COVID-19 prevention practices: a quasi-experimental study.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical texting systems (CTS) are widely used in hospitals for team communication about patients. With more institutions adopting such systems, there is a need to understand how texting is being used in clinical practice.
methodsWe conducted content analysis of 809 randomly selected message threads sent to and from hospitalists in a 9-month window. The process, purpose and content of messages were analysed. We also examined messages for personal content (to identify whether CTS was being used for professional matters) and discussion of near miss errors. The risk levels of these near misses were also assessed.
resultsMost messages focused on clinical management of patient needs (62%; n=498) and functioned to provide a notification or update regarding clinical care (64%; n=518) or make a request of the recipient (63%; n=510). Personal content was infrequent in message threads (10%; n=80). Five per cent (n=38) of message threads included discussion of a near miss, and most near misses posed low clinical risk overall (66%; n=25).
conclusionMost CTS communication centred around direct clinical management. Fewer messages were focused on non-clinical areas such as administrative tasks or personal communication. Further examination of care delivery, error communication and the consequences of the care discussed in messages would help clinical leaders understand the impact of clinical texting on teamwork and quality of 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.