Since Apple unveiled the iPad, the device has been lauded for its promise to enhance the way doctors deliver and patients engage with healthcare. Yet the results of a recent survey may be reason enough for Apple iPad boosters to seek treatment themselves.
With 86 percent of all residents at the Riverside Methodist Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, participating (102 of 119), only 32.4 percent thought the iPad increased their efficiency in looking up results, reports and information to practice EBM (Evidence Based Medicine).
The results show a sharp difference between medicine-based residents – internal medicine, family practice, preliminary medicine/transitional year and surgical-based residents – and their surgical/obstetrics and gynecology counterparts. Only 16.7 percent of the surgical-based residents responded with “often/always,” while 38.9 percent of the medicine-based residents said they believe the iPad is beneficial to the practice of EBM.
The results were even poorer when residents responded to the statement that the iPad increased efficiency in writing progress notes. Here 9.7 percent of the medicine-based residents found this to be true most of the time, while only 3.3 percent among the surgical-based residents agreed with the statement.
[See also: Apple's iPad Air brings same health-centric features as latest iPhone.]
And so the fundamental question: Does the iPad actually facilitate better patient care? Once again, less than 50 percent believe this to be the case.
The iPad did fare better among residents as an educational tool, with 52 percent saying they would recommend an iPad as a resource tool and 57 percent finding it useful for locating articles outside the hospital.
All participants were equipped with a $499 16GB iPad 2 with Wi-Fi and were even issued new white coats with an oversized pocket to accommodate the iPad. While there was an orientation class prior to the distribution of the iPads, however, there was no consideration given to the different levels of tech savvy among residents.
This study does expose the dichotomy between the real world and the improbable realm of a sales presentation to hospital administrators.
Among one of the many contributing factors to the less-than-satisfactory rating for the utility of the iPad was the fact that at Riverside EHRs could not be directly accessed on the iPad – users had to go through a two-step process from the iPad to a remote PC to the EHR.
Residents also experienced difficulties with log-in and connectivity, noting those as “significant” issues. Rather than creating a trouble ticket over these issues, residents often used a desktop computer instead. Over the year-long survey, only 98 trouble tickets were written. In addition, electronic order entry is not available at Riverside, causing the study to conclude that “workflow on the iPad was disjointed.”
If these IT issues on the backend were addressed, the assessment of the value of an iPad on the front end may have been more positive.
That is not to say the iPad would be the perfect device for mobile healthcare even if all the IT issues were resolved. Far from it. The Riverside Hospital study cites a 2012 white paper by software vendor Epocrates, “Mobile Trends Report: Rise of the Digital Omnivore,” which found that iPad users disliked the onscreen keyboard. thought it was difficult to use, and felt the separate keyboard was “self-defeating.”
Are different devices needed for different applications? Well, that opens up a whole other can of worms.
Ephraim Schwartz is a freelance writer based in Burlington, Vt. Schwartz is a recognized mobile expert and columnist, having spent 15 years as Editor-at-Large for InfoWorld, half of them covering the mobile space. Prior to that he was Editor-in-Chief of Laptop Magazine.
Related articles:
Bounty: $10 million for Star Trek-like tricorder mobile medical scanner
Cutting readmissions with biometric monitors
Next-gen response systems: mHealth for older adults
