Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;328:1162 (15 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1162
Ann Scheck McAlearney, assistant professor1, Sharon B Schweikhart, associate professor1, Mitchell A Medow, assistant professor of clinical medicine2
1 Division of Health Services Management and Policy, Ohio State University, School of Public Health, 1583 Perry Street, Atwell 246, Columbus, OH 43210-1234, USA, 2 Division of General Internal Medicine, Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Correspondence to: A S McAlearney mcalearney.1{at}osu.edu
Design Qualitative study of eight focus groups consisting of doctors with diverse training and practice patterns.
Setting Six practice settings across the United States and two additional focus group sessions held at a national meeting of general internists.
Participants 54 doctors who did or did not use handheld computers.
Results Doctors who used handheld computers in clinical practice seemed generally satisfied with them and reported diverse patterns of use. Users perceived that the devices helped them increase productivity and improve patient care. Barriers to use concerned the device itself and personal and perceptual constraints, with perceptual factors such as comfort with technology, preference for paper, and the impression that the devices are not easy to use somewhat difficult to overcome. Participants suggested that organisations can help promote handheld computers by providing advice on purchase, usage, training, and user support. Participants expressed concern about reliability and security of the device but were particularly concerned about dependency on the device and over-reliance as a substitute for clinical thinking.
Conclusions Doctors expect handheld computers to become more useful, and most seem interested in leveraging (getting the most value from) their use. Key opportunities with handheld computers included their use as a stepping stone to build doctors' comfort with other information technology and ehealth initiatives and providing point of care support that helps improve patient care.
Focus groups
We held eight focus group sessions lasting 60-90 minutes between April 2002 and September 2003. Six sessions were conducted at a medical centre, a children's hospital, an independent practice association, two community based healthcare systems, and a community hospital. Two sessions were conducted at a meeting of general internists.
Topics covered included general use of handheld computers, rationale for use, expectations, barriers or challenges, and organisational support. Ongoing analyses led to the inclusion of new topics. These included perceived benefits of handheld computers, behaviour changes with use, and concerns. We asked participants about the specifics of their use of handheld computers and any organisational expectations for their use.
Two study investigators conducted each focus group, facilitating discussion with an open ended list of questions, including probes for more detailed information. The sessions were audio-taped, transcribed, and then verified and corrected by one investigator (ASM, SBS, or MAM).
Participants
Our eight focus groups consisted of 54 doctors. One third of the doctors were women and three quarters were generalists. Nearly half of the participants practised full time, and the remainder were residents or fellows. The groups contained doctors who did or did not use handheld computers, with users representing a variety of levels and patterns of use. One third of participants were affiliated with an academic medical centre and the remainder were affiliated with an independent practice association, community hospital, or children's hospital.
Analyses
We analysed our data using a combination of deductive and inductive methods.3 The investigators read the transcripts, identified broad themes, and discussed emergent findings. This iterative process allowed new ideas and themes to be presented in subsequent sessions. By the end of the sixth session no new major themes emerged, indicating near saturation.4 The last two sessions completed the deductive part of our analysis.
The investigators read the transcripts several times and constructed a preliminary coding frame. This frame was applied to two common transcripts, which enabled decisions on coding to be compared and codes to be clarified. We then identified categories and constructed major themes. Periodic discussions among the investigators ensured consistency of coding and helped us reach agreement on final themes. An ongoing review of the literature helped us to compare, validate, and extend our findings.4
Participants typically used handheld computers at their own initiation, buying devices based on personal preferences or recommendations. An increasing number of organisations are promoting handheld computers as part of the strategy for clinical information technology, with many academic medical centres purchasing devices for their residents. In one institution, doctors use handheld computers to access patients' electronic records through a browser based application, similar to that in a recent study.5 At two organisations we studied, residents use their devices to share patient details between shifts.
Patterns of use and characteristics of handheld computer users
The frequency and intensity of use of handheld computers varied, and on the basis of these we were able to develop user categories (table). Non-users had never used handheld computers or had abandoned them. Niche users included those whose use was restricted to a single application but reported that this limited functionality was sufficiently valuable such that they would continue use. Routine users had integrated handheld computers into their clinical workflow, using multiple applications on a regular basis. Power users were self described "technophiles" who were eager to showcase their latest device.
|
|
Perceived benefits of handheld computers
Users seemed generally satisfied with their handheld computers and perceived many benefits (box 2). We anticipated discussion about productivity gains and convenience, but we also heard many doctors describing how they do things differently and "better" owing to the device. We explored this theme further. One doctor explained "I don't guess that something is not interacting with warfarin and cross my fingers and hope. That's my biggest thing, I don't guess. Or say I will look that up later and not get to it." Similarly, many participants noted how they "look things up more, medication-wise."
Across all groups, users reported that handheld computer applications often provided complementary benefits, improving productivity and interactions with patients: "It reminds me to do things that I might forget to do. Not just be at this meeting, but I can get a glance and see that I haven't done the stool occult blood on that patient because they are in front of me." These findings are supported by other studies.6 7
|
Barriers to use of handheld computers
The two main barriers to using handheld computers were personal issues and the device itself. Issues concerning the device included size, limited memory and battery life, and speed of data exchange.8-12 Many participants expressed frustration, especially with data entry: "You know, with the Palm you are trying to write graffiti. And, you know me, I'm going `Oh, that's wrong.' I can't remember what is a seven? It's coming out two! I think the data entry is real tough."
Two major personal barriers described by non-users were physical constraints, such as eyesight, and perceptual constraints, including comfort with the device and personal preferences (box 3). In contrast, users rarely reported personal barriers and instead described those device features perceived as problematic by non-users as strengths, such as raving about portability rather than complaining about a small screen. Similarly, although non-users reported that "these things just have to be easier," routine and power users described the operating systems as "intuitive."
A major barrier for non-users in all groups was their perception that they did not receive, or expect to receive, enough value from the devices to change their existing patterns of practice. As a former user explained, "it just takes too long and is too disruptive to the day." Another participant said "A lot of residents would open it up and try to load up all the stuff that they need and they would just get so frustrated and didn't know how to do it, that it was taking too much time, that it just wasn't worth it." Furthermore, when computers were readily available, both non-users and former users perceived it as unnecessary to incorporate handheld computers into clinical workflow. Routine and power users, however, provided numerous examples of where devices added value and improved their work routines.
Strategies proposed by doctors to overcome barriers
Participants suggested several ways in which organisations could help to overcome barriers (box 4). Doctors who had never used handheld computers noted that advice about which device to use might be sufficient to tip them into a user category: "For people who aren't used to using computers, it's just not worth the time to figure all that stuff out." Niche users wanted specific advice about the appropriateness of applications, and our impression was that this might shift them towards routine use.
Organisations could provide training and retraining to overcome many barriers. Both niche users and routine users were aware that there was more they could do with the device, if only they knew what and how: "I don't know how to use it to its fullest potential. It's my fault rather than the machine's fault. But I haven't been educated enough to use it to its fullest potential." Participants suggested that training should be available one on one and should involve another clinician (nurse or doctor). With the exception of power users, most users wanted support available constantly from a help desk or expert: "So I guess what we're saying is that maybe there should be like a first aid station... somewhere I can go to, sit down and say this is what I'm trying to do. Why can't I do it? What did I do wrong? How can you help me make it right?"
Doctors reported that the more computer friendly their organisation, the more likely they were to keep using or trying to use handheld computers. A few participants noted that an organisation sensitive to their needs would be an appealing place to practise.
Concerns about handheld computers
Concerns raised in early focus groups were purposely explored further in subsequent groups. We categorised concerns into four areas: the device itself, information security, over-reliance, and potential changes to practice.
Doctors' concerns about the device included loss, breakage, and reliability. Less common were concerns about security. Although doctors expressed concern about secure patient data, they seemed unconvinced that handheld computers represented a greater threat than paper records. In most sessions, satisfaction with convenience seemed to compete with concern about security: "You can lock it but I never do. It is a pain to get in." Power users, however, reported reliably adopting security routines.
A major concern that emerged in every focus group was dependency, particularly among routine users and power users (box 5): "The Palm runs my lifeif I lost it! Ugh." Many users also
|
|
Some doctors were concerned about handheld computers changing clinical practice for the worse. Several doctors were concerned that avid users might continuously collect data without furthering patient care. Others were troubled that patients might look negatively upon them for using the devices. A few respondents in each group remarked that they purposely did not use the devices in front of patients, but others were comfortable doing so: "Initially I was afraid that if I had to use a device, they would think I was stupid. But they don't. It doesn't seem that they feel that way. I think I get credit for having a device, which is trendy. So they think I'm smarter." Another group of doctors voiced concern that these devices may become a tool of administration to further constrain their practice, for example, by enforcing guidelines.
|
Expectations about future use of handheld computers
Most doctors thought that the trend towards incorporating new electronic technologies into medicine would continue. Participants remarked that new doctors were more comfortable with electronic technologies, and this may help promote the use of handheld computers: "The residents coming out right now aren't at that stage right now, but very soon. Not far behind is a group that will only know computers." The contrasting viewpoint, however, was also expressed: "So the question is, how fast does everybody have to change?... A lot of people are going to get away with not learning."
Participants in each group said that handheld computers were destined to become critical because of their potential to improve patient safety and the quality of care. Even when faced with sacrificing personal autonomy, the view for the future was that it is more important to be right and safe (box 6):
So in a lot of ways, our world has been our personal autonomy at getting things right. And more and more that paradigm is moving away. And the requirement of precision is much greater. So I'm not really allowed anymore to get the drug interactions wrong. So, I have to have a device that makes it right... So, if you're going to be held to that standard, then you have to have the tools to be held to that standard. So we're talking about standard of care now, which affects all of us. So, whether you're in medical school and everyone has their Palm Pilot and they're whizzes at it, as opposed to somebody like me who's struggling and wants learn to be able to access and to benefit from this technology, we have to do it... writing illegibly is not going to do it anymore
Although many users were enthusiastic about the potential for handheld computers, most maintained a sense of balance in their perspective: "Just like anything else, it's a tool. It's not the end all be all. It has its pros and its cons, and you just have to learn to get used to it. In some ways it's made our lives easier, and in others it's a bit more cumbersome."
|
|
Our sample was limited to the United States. Although we sought representation from users and non-users of handheld computers, participants were self selecting, and participation was voluntary. It is likely that doctors interested in handheld computers would be more inclined to participate, although our groups did include sceptics and non-users.
As the use of handheld computers in clinical practice is relatively new, and because organisational use of handheld computers varies widely,13 we included doctors at various stages in both their own and their organisation's learning about the devices. Our findings are therefore in part influenced by each doctor's place on the learning curve.
Developing strategies to accommodate handheld computers in clinical practice may be advantageous for both institutions and doctors, especially when the devices are used to access clinical information systems, promoting both enhanced safety and improved time efficiency for doctors. When the expected benefits of electronic health records and other electronic applications largely depend on doctors' use of technology, strategies to promote use of such technologies are critical. For many doctors, handheld computers are emerging as a key means to develop familiarity with and to access electronic clinical information. These devices thus may serve as a technology stepping stone for doctors as they face new ehealth initiatives.
Funding: Center for Health Management Research.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: Behavioral and Social Sciences Institutional Review Board, Ohio State University (IRB protocol number 01B012).
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.