Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38466978›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

The Impact of Digital Hospitals on Patient and Clinician Experience: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.

Oliver J Canfell, Leanna Woods, Yasaman Meshkat, Jenna Krivit, Brinda Gunashanhar, Christine Slade, Andrew Burton-Jones, Clair Sullivan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Digital Pain Assessment: Patient and Family Perspectives.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors.

Oliver J Canfell *Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2010-3640
Leanna Woods *Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4811-4608
Yasaman MeshkatSchool of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0009-0001-3154-222X
Jenna KrivitSchool of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0009-0009-4256-860X
Brinda GunashanharSchool of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0009-0007-1925-3138
Christine SladeInstitute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2197-2824
Andrew Burton-JonesUQ Business School, Faculty of Business, Economics and Law, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7865-4296
Clair SullivanCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2475-9989

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe digital transformation of health care is advancing rapidly. A well-accepted framework for health care improvement is the Quadruple Aim: improved clinician experience, improved patient experience, improved population health, and reduced health care costs. Hospitals are attempting to improve care by using digital technologies, but the effectiveness of these technologies is often only measured against cost and quality indicators, and less is known about the clinician and patient experience.

objectiveThis study aims to conduct a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis to assess the clinician and patient experience of digital hospitals.

methodsThe PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and ENTREQ (Enhancing the Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) guidelines were followed. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched from January 2010 to June 2022. Studies that explored multidisciplinary clinician or adult inpatient experiences of digital hospitals (with a full electronic medical record) were included. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data synthesis was performed narratively for quantitative studies. Qualitative evidence synthesis was performed via (1) automated machine learning text analytics using Leximancer (Leximancer Pty Ltd) and (2) researcher-led inductive synthesis to generate themes.

resultsA total of 61 studies (n=39, 64% quantitative; n=15, 25% qualitative; and n=7, 11% mixed methods) were included. Most studies (55/61, 90%) investigated clinician experiences, whereas few (10/61, 16%) investigated patient experiences. The study populations ranged from 8 to 3610 clinicians, 11 to 34,425 patients, and 5 to 2836 hospitals. Quantitative outcomes indicated that clinicians had a positive overall satisfaction (17/24, 71% of the studies) with digital hospitals, and most studies (11/19, 58%) reported a positive sentiment toward usability. Data accessibility was reported positively, whereas adaptation, clinician-patient interaction, and workload burnout were reported negatively. The effects of digital hospitals on patient safety and clinicians' ability to deliver patient care were mixed. The qualitative evidence synthesis of clinician experience studies (18/61, 30%) generated 7 themes: inefficient digital documentation, inconsistent data quality, disruptions to conventional health care relationships, acceptance, safety versus risk, reliance on hybrid (digital and paper) workflows, and patient data privacy. There was weak evidence of a positive association between digital hospitals and patient satisfaction scores.

conclusionsClinicians' experience of digital hospitals appears positive according to high-level indicators (eg, overall satisfaction and data accessibility), but the qualitative evidence synthesis revealed substantive tensions. There is insufficient evidence to draw a definitive conclusion on the patient experience within digital hospitals, but indications appear positive or agnostic. Future research must prioritize equitable investigation and definition of the digital clinician and patient experience to achieve the Quadruple Aim of health care.

Indexed as

HospitalsDigital TechnologyElectronic Health RecordsHumansPatient SatisfactionQualitative Researchattitudedigital hospitaldigital hospitalseHealthelectronic health recordelectronic medical recordexperiencehealth care professionalshospitalspatientspatient satisfactionperceptionsatisfactionsystematic

Identifiers

PMID38466978
PMCPMC10964148

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.