4.5 Article

Doctors' experience with handheld computers in clinical practice: qualitative study

Journal

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 328, Issue 7449, Pages 1162-1165

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1162

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To examine doctors' perspectives about their experiences with handheld computers in clinical practice. Design Qualitative study of eight focus groups consisting of doctors with diverse training and practice patterns. Setting Six practice settings across the United States an 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 about purchase and usage, training, and user support. Participants expressed concern about reliability and security of the device but were particularly concerned about dependency 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 to doctors that helps improve patient care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available