Smartphone Use in the Management of Neurological Emergencies: A Simulation-Based Study.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurocritical Care Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1007/s12028-024-02000-7
Melissa B Pergakis, Afrah A Ali, WanTsu Wendy Chang, Benjamin Neustein, Casey Albin, Aimee Aysenne, Samuel A Tisherman, Nicholas A Morris
{"title":"Smartphone Use in the Management of Neurological Emergencies: A Simulation-Based Study.","authors":"Melissa B Pergakis, Afrah A Ali, WanTsu Wendy Chang, Benjamin Neustein, Casey Albin, Aimee Aysenne, Samuel A Tisherman, Nicholas A Morris","doi":"10.1007/s12028-024-02000-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Smartphone use in medicine is nearly universal despite a dearth of research assessing utility in clinical performance. We sought to identify and define smartphone use during simulated neuroemergencies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective review of a prospective observational single-center simulation-based study, participants ranging from subinterns to attending physicians and stratified by training level (novice, intermediate, and advanced) managed a variety of neurological emergencies. The primary outcome was frequency and purpose of smartphone use. Secondary outcomes included success rate of smartphone use and performance (measured by completion of critical tasks) of participants who used smartphones versus those who did not. In subgroup analyses we compared outcomes across participants by level of training using t-tests and χ<sup>2</sup> statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and three participants completed 245 simulation scenarios. Smartphones were used in 109 (45%) simulations. Of participants using smartphones, 102 participants looked up medication doses, 52 participants looked up management guidelines, 11 participants looked up hospital protocols, and 13 participants used smartphones for assistance with an examination scale. Participants found the correct answer 73% of the time using smartphones. There was an association between participant level and smartphone use with intermediate participants being more likely to use their smartphones than novice or advanced participants, 53% versus 29% and 26%, respectively (p < 0.05). Of the intermediate participants, those who used smartphones did not perform better during the simulation scenario than participants who did not use smartphones (smartphone users' mean score [standard deviation] = 12.3 [2.9] vs. nonsmartphone users' mean score [standard deviation] = 12.9 (2.7), p = 0.85).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants commonly used smartphones in simulated neuroemergencies but use didn't confer improved clinical performance. Less experienced participants were the most likely to use smartphones and less likely to arrive at correct conclusions, and thus are the most likely to benefit from an evidence-based smartphone application for neuroemergencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":19118,"journal":{"name":"Neurocritical Care","volume":" ","pages":"840-846"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocritical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02000-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Smartphone use in medicine is nearly universal despite a dearth of research assessing utility in clinical performance. We sought to identify and define smartphone use during simulated neuroemergencies.

Methods: In this retrospective review of a prospective observational single-center simulation-based study, participants ranging from subinterns to attending physicians and stratified by training level (novice, intermediate, and advanced) managed a variety of neurological emergencies. The primary outcome was frequency and purpose of smartphone use. Secondary outcomes included success rate of smartphone use and performance (measured by completion of critical tasks) of participants who used smartphones versus those who did not. In subgroup analyses we compared outcomes across participants by level of training using t-tests and χ2 statistics.

Results: One hundred and three participants completed 245 simulation scenarios. Smartphones were used in 109 (45%) simulations. Of participants using smartphones, 102 participants looked up medication doses, 52 participants looked up management guidelines, 11 participants looked up hospital protocols, and 13 participants used smartphones for assistance with an examination scale. Participants found the correct answer 73% of the time using smartphones. There was an association between participant level and smartphone use with intermediate participants being more likely to use their smartphones than novice or advanced participants, 53% versus 29% and 26%, respectively (p < 0.05). Of the intermediate participants, those who used smartphones did not perform better during the simulation scenario than participants who did not use smartphones (smartphone users' mean score [standard deviation] = 12.3 [2.9] vs. nonsmartphone users' mean score [standard deviation] = 12.9 (2.7), p = 0.85).

Conclusions: Participants commonly used smartphones in simulated neuroemergencies but use didn't confer improved clinical performance. Less experienced participants were the most likely to use smartphones and less likely to arrive at correct conclusions, and thus are the most likely to benefit from an evidence-based smartphone application for neuroemergencies.

Abstract Image

智能手机在神经系统急症处理中的应用:模拟研究。
背景:尽管评估智能手机在临床表现中的效用的研究很少,但智能手机在医学中的使用几乎是普遍的。我们试图确定和定义在模拟神经急症中智能手机的使用情况:在这项基于单中心模拟的前瞻性观察研究的回顾性回顾中,参与者从实习医生到主治医生不等,并按培训级别(新手、中级和高级)进行分层,管理各种神经系统急症。主要结果是智能手机的使用频率和目的。次要结果包括使用智能手机的参与者与未使用智能手机的参与者的智能手机使用成功率和表现(以完成关键任务为衡量标准)。在分组分析中,我们使用 t 检验和 χ2 统计量对不同培训水平的参与者的结果进行了比较:结果:13 名参与者完成了 245 个模拟场景。有 109 人(45%)在模拟场景中使用了智能手机。在使用智能手机的参与者中,102 人查询了药物剂量,52 人查询了管理指南,11 人查询了医院协议,13 人使用智能手机协助完成了检查量表。参与者使用智能手机找到正确答案的比例为 73%。参与者水平与智能手机使用率之间存在关联,中级参与者比新手或高级参与者更有可能使用智能手机,分别为 53% 对 29% 和 26%(P 结论:中级参与者比新手或高级参与者更有可能使用智能手机,分别为 53% 对 29% 和 26%(P 结论:中级参与者比新手或高级参与者更有可能使用智能手机:参与者在模拟神经突发事件中普遍使用智能手机,但使用智能手机并不会提高临床表现。经验较少的参与者最有可能使用智能手机,但得出正确结论的可能性较低,因此最有可能从基于证据的神经紧急情况智能手机应用中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurocritical Care
Neurocritical Care 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
8.60%
发文量
221
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurocritical Care is a peer reviewed scientific publication whose major goal is to disseminate new knowledge on all aspects of acute neurological care. It is directed towards neurosurgeons, neuro-intensivists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, and critical care nurses treating patients with urgent neurologic disorders. These are conditions that may potentially evolve rapidly and could need immediate medical or surgical intervention. Neurocritical Care provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in intensive care neurology, neurosurgery and neuroanesthesia and includes information about new therapeutic avenues and technological innovations. Neurocritical Care is the official journal of the Neurocritical Care Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信