A UK perspective on smartphone use amongst doctors within the surgical profession

Background Advancements in technology have always had major impacts in medicine. The smartphone is one of the most ubiquitous and dynamic trends in communication, in which one’s mobile phone can also be used for communicating via email, performing Internet searches, and using specific applications. The smartphone is one of the fastest growing sectors in the technology industry, and its impact in medicine has already been significant. Objective To provide a comprehensive and up-to-date summary of the role of the smartphone in medicine by highlighting the ways in which it can enhance continuing medical education, patient care, and communication. We also examine the evidence base for this technology. Methods We conducted a review of all published uses of the smartphone that could be applicable to the field of medicine and medical education with the exclusion of only surgical-related uses. Results In the 60 studies that were identified, we found many uses for the smartphone in medicine; however, we also found that very few high-quality studies exist to help us understand how best to use this technology. Conclusions While the smartphone’s role in medicine and education appears promising and exciting, more high-quality studies are needed to better understand the role it will have in this field. We recommend popular smartphone applications for physicians that are lacking in evidence and discuss future studies to support their use.

The past decade has witnessed the advent of the smartphone, a device armed with computing power, mobility and downloadable "apps," that has become commonplace within the medical field as both a personal and professional tool. The popularity of medically-related apps suggests that physicians use mobile technology to assist with clinical decision making, yet usage patterns have never been quantified. A digital survey examining smartphone and associated app usage was administered via email to all ACGME training programs. Data regarding respondent specialty, level of training, use of smartphones, use of smartphone apps, desired apps, and commonly used apps were collected and analyzed. Greater than 85% of respondents used a smartphone, of which the iPhone was the most popular (56%). Over half of the respondents reported using apps in their clinical practice; the most commonly used app types were drug guides (79%), medical calculators (18%), coding and billing apps (4%) and pregnancy wheels (4%). The most frequently requested app types were textbook/reference materials (average response: 55%), classification/treatment algorithms (46%) and general medical knowledge (43%). The clinical use of smartphones and apps will likely continue to increase, and we have demonstrated an absence of high-quality and popular apps despite a strong desire among physicians and trainees. This information should be used to guide the development of future healthcare delivery systems; expanded app functionality is almost certain but reliability and ease of use will likely remain major factors in determining the successful integration of apps into clinical practice.

The substantial growth in mobile handheld technologies has heralded the opportunity to provide physicians with access to information, resources, and people at the right time and place. But is this technology delivering the benefits to workflow and patient care promised by increased mobility? The authors conducted a systematic review to examine evidence regarding the impact of mobile handheld technology on hospital physicians' work practices and patient care, focusing on quantification of the espoused virtues of mobile technologies. The authors identified thirteen studies that demonstrated the ability of personal digital assistants (PDAs) to positively impact on areas of rapid response, error prevention, and data management and accessibility. The use of PDAs demonstrates the greatest benefits in contexts where time is a critical factor and a rapid response crucial. However, the extent to which these devices improved outcomes and workflow efficiencies because of their mobility was largely absent from the literature. The paucity of evidence calls for much needed future research that asks explicit questions about the impact the mobility of devices has on work practices and outcomes.