Study shows only 50 percent of cancer apps actually contain clinical evidence

See on Scoop.itoncoTools

In a recent study by Pandey et al in the Journal of Cancer Education, the authors sought to identify mobile applications related to oncology as of July 29, 2011. Results of the study included 77 apps in the final analysis.

Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, only a quarter of the apps were uploaded by health care agencies. Clinical evidence was noted in slightly over half the apps, and even those created by health care related agencies demonstrated that only 79% had scientific evidence provided.

Relatris‘s insight:

“Clinical evidence was noted in slightly over half the apps”…. This is really an unacceptable status, for clinicians as for patients. There clearly is a high need of quality control in the field of medical apps!

See on www.imedicalapps.com

Advertisements

Residency programs grapple with use of smart devices

See on Scoop.itoncoTools

An estimated 85 percent of residents have smartphones, which they use an average 2.1 hours per day—including for clinical work. While such smart devices as phones and tablets promise advances in medical efficiency and functionality, there may be unintended consequences as well.

Relatris‘s insight:

Read the linked article!!! (we cannot scoop it here as it is a pdf file) It raises several core concerns about how we use mobile devices (we think it also applies for desktop computers on your consultation table) in clinical practice. It not only applies to residents but also to clinicians. Do you watch your computer screen during consultations? How does your patient feel in this situation? It happend to me several times- and it felt very wired and rude…..

“It is important to pause and consider the unintended consequences of the adoption of this technology. For example, there have been multiple reports of medical errors caused by information technology, such as computerized provider order entry and clinical decision support systems
[…]
Because of the increased connectivity of these devices to work colleagues as well as to residents’ personal life, interruptions may increase in both realms. This may result in ‘‘distracted doctoring’’ and increased medical errors.
[…]
From an educational perspective, we have found that providing residents with smartphones makes them, in effect, more global and less local. This combined with increased interruptions can create professionalism issues. A resident may be providing good care for a patient on a distant ward when he responds quickly to a request from a nurse via smartphone or tablet. However, this act may be viewed as rudeness by the patient right in front of the resident.
[…]
Because devices make reaching supervisors easier, residents may defer most decision making to supervisors, with resulting loss of autonomy and learning.
[…]
Tablets and smartphones also increase connections to residents’ personal lives. Recently at our institution, an attending on rounds observed his medical student accessing Facebook while the attending was discussing a recently diagnosed cancer with the patient.

See on www.ama-assn.org

Study: Medical apps improve Physician ability to answer clinical questions in resource limited areas

See on Scoop.itoncoTools

A recent study evaluated whether medical residents in Botswana had better clinical reference access through mobile medical applications over PubMed4Hh.

Relatris‘s insight:

Isn’t the correct answer rate a bit low in all the settings?

See on www.imedicalapps.com

Study shows opioid converting medical apps lack consistency

See on Scoop.itoncoTools

In a recent study in Drug Safety by Haffey et al, the authors evaluated the accuracy and reliability of opioid conversion apps.

The authors identified apps across six mobile app stores during the month of February 2012, using search terms including: opioid, morphine, medical calculator, and conversions. Twenty-six apps were identified meeting the search criteria, with three subsequently excluded. Of the 23 apps identified, only 5 (22%) had the involvement of a named practitioner in the development of the app. Additionally, only 11 (48%) referenced their opioid conversion methods from journals, guidelines, or textbooks.

See on www.imedicalapps.com