Mobile and fixed computer use by doctors and nurses on hospital wards: multi-method study on the relationships between clinician role, clinical task, and device choice.
BACKGROUND
Selecting the right mix of stationary and mobile computing devices is a significant challenge for system planners and implementers. There is very limited research evidence upon which to base such decisions.


OBJECTIVE
We aimed to investigate the relationships between clinician role, clinical task, and selection of a computer hardware device in hospital wards.


METHODS
Twenty-seven nurses and eight doctors were observed for a total of 80 hours as they used a range of computing devices to access a computerized provider order entry system on two wards at a major Sydney teaching hospital. Observers used a checklist to record the clinical tasks completed, devices used, and location of the activities. Field notes were also documented during observations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after observation sessions. Assessment of the physical attributes of three devices-stationary PCs, computers on wheels (COWs) and tablet PCs-was made. Two types of COWs were available on the wards: generic COWs (laptops mounted on trolleys) and ergonomic COWs (an integrated computer and cart device). Heuristic evaluation of the user interfaces was also carried out.


RESULTS
The majority (93.1%) of observed nursing tasks were conducted using generic COWs. Most nursing tasks were performed in patients' rooms (57%) or in the corridors (36%), with a small percentage at a patient's bedside (5%). Most nursing tasks related to the preparation and administration of drugs. Doctors on ward rounds conducted 57.3% of observed clinical tasks on generic COWs and 35.9% on tablet PCs. On rounds, 56% of doctors' tasks were performed in the corridors, 29% in patients' rooms, and 3% at the bedside. Doctors not on a ward round conducted 93.6% of tasks using stationary PCs, most often within the doctors' office. Nurses and doctors were observed performing workarounds, such as transcribing medication orders from the computer to paper.


CONCLUSIONS
The choice of device was related to clinical role, nature of the clinical task, degree of mobility required, including where task completion occurs, and device design. Nurses' work, and clinical tasks performed by doctors during ward rounds, require highly mobile computer devices. Nurses and doctors on ward rounds showed a strong preference for generic COWs over all other devices. Tablet PCs were selected by doctors for only a small proportion of clinical tasks. Even when using mobile devices clinicians completed a very low proportion of observed tasks at the bedside. The design of the devices and ward space configurations place limitations on how and where devices are used and on the mobility of clinical work. In such circumstances, clinicians will initiate workarounds to compensate. In selecting hardware devices, consideration should be given to who will be using the devices, the nature of their work, and the physical layout of the ward.
Andersen
Pia
P
Medical Informatics Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Lindgaard
Anne-Mette
AM
Prgomet
Mirela
M
Creswick
Nerida
N
Westbrook
Johanna I
JI
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D001292:Attitude to Computers; D001315:Australia; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003201:Computers; D004282:Documentation / Q000379:methods; D004358:Drug Therapy / Q000379:methods; D006749:Hospital Design and Construction; D006801:Humans; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D008505:Medical Staff, Hospital; D008838:Microcomputers; D009741:Nursing Staff, Hospital; D010362:Patients' Rooms; D012380:Role; D012984:Software
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;136:309-14
18487749
Ergonomics. 2003 Oct 20-Nov 15;46(13-14):1441-61
14612330
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Jan-Feb;15(1):114-9
17947626
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Nov-Dec;14(6):746-55
17712083
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Jan 10;8:2
18186935
Pediatrics. 2005 Dec;116(6):1506-12
16322178
Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 16;144(10):742-52
16702590
J Biomed Inform. 2004 Apr;37(2):128-37
15120659
Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 May-Jun;25(3):819-31
16684749
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 Mar-Apr;10(2):139-49
12595403
Int J Med Inform. 2010 Jun;79(6):e116-25
19008147
Nurse Educ Today. 2009 Feb;29(2):246-53
18945525
Med J Aust. 2008 May 5;188(9):506-9
18459920
Int J Med Inform. 2005 Jun;74(5):409-22
15893264
Int J Med Inform. 2004 May;73(4):363-9
15135755
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Jan 24;8:5
18218117
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008 Jan 15;65(2):154-7
18192262
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;:1096
17238715
Int J Med Inform. 2008 May;77(5):291-304
17951106
Int J Med Inform. 2000 Jan;57(1):21-40
10708253
BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):750-3
10720357
Int J Med Inform. 2003 Sep;71(2-3):125-35
14519405
Lancet. 2005 Oct 1;366(9492):1210-22
16198770
J Med Internet Res. 2008 Oct 28;10(4):e31
18957381
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 2):1083-7
17911882