Search

Summary Objectives: To evaluate the efficiency and acceptance of digital pen and paper technology for real-time clinical data acquisition. Methods: A prospective interventional unblinded study involving consecutive patients in two clinical settings during a defined time-frame was proposed. The first trial was designed as a stress test to evaluate acceptance in a workload-intensive environment. Acceptance was assessed using observations and a satisfaction questionnaire. The second trial was intended to determine the reliability of data acquisition in a controlled environment. Reliability was assessed by comparing the performance of the digital pen against scanner analysis and a double human blinded acquisition. Results: Overall, users were satisfied with the use of the digital pen (median 3 on a Likert-scale (–5, 5)). Without any specific user training, successful data acquisition was greater than 80%. Use of this technology required less adaptation than standard computer devices, and was easy to learn and use. Ergonomic problems shaded the perception of the technology by inducing an increased cognitive load. Digitalized data was missing either because of a bug or due to lack of data validation. The reliability obtained with the digital pen was significantly lower to that obtained with the scanner. Conclusions: Natural technology such as the digital pen proved to be a good tool in stressful clinical environments without interfering with the normal workload or increasing the time for data acquisition. However, in order to improve quality of data acquisition, designing acquisition forms specifically for the use of digital pens is of paramount importance.

Summary Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of hybrid environments (i.e. where part of the patient record is paper-based and part of it is electronic) upon aspects of novice nurse information seeking (i.e. amount of information accessed, choice of key information sources, type of information and use of information seeking tactics). Methods: A within group, laboratory, experimental study was conducted using two simulated environments (i.e. a paper environment and a hybrid environment). Thirty-five novice nurses participated in the study. Results: Findings revealed significant differences between the paper and hybrid environments in terms of their effects upon aspects of novice nurse information seeking. Subjects accessed: 1) less information in the hybrid environment than the paper environment, 2) more non-electronic sources of information were accessed by novice nurses in the hybrid environment, and 3) novice nurses used more passive information seeking tactics in the hybrid environment than the paper environment. Qualitative findings from the cued recall data revealed subjects experienced increased cognitive load in the hybrid environment. Conclusions: Hybrid environments may affect aspects of novice nurse information seeking. Future research should explore the effects of hybrid environments upon the information seeking of other types of health professionals (e.g. physicians, physiotherapists) with differing levels of expertise (i.e. novice, intermediate and expert).