Introduction: Success of e-health relies on the extent to which the related technology, such as the electronic device, is accepted by its users. However, there has been limited research on the patients’ perspective on use of e-health-related technology in rehabilitation care. Objective: To explore the usage of common electronic devices among rehabilitation patients with access to email and investigate their preferences regarding their usage in rehabilitation. Methods: Adult patients who were admitted for inpatient and/or outpatient rehabilitation and were registered with an email address were invited to complete an electronic questionnaire regarding current and preferred use of information and communication technologies in rehabilitation care. Results: 190 out of 714 invited patients completed the questionnaire, 94 (49%) female, mean age 49 years (SD 16). 149 patients (78%) used one or more devices every day, with the most frequently used devices were: PC/laptop (93%), smartphone (57%) and tablet (47%). Patients mostly preferred to use technology for contact with health professionals (mean 3.15, SD 0.79), followed by access to their personal record (mean 3.09, SD 0.78) and scheduling appointments with health professionals (mean 3.07, SD 0.85). Conclusion: Most patients in rehabilitation used one or more devices almost every day and wish to use these devices in rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1358302
MULTIFILE
Introduction: Retrospective studies suggest that a rapid initiation of treatment results in a better prognosis for patients in the emergency department. There could be a difference between the actual medication administration time and the documented time in the electronic health record. In this study, the difference between the observed medication administration time and documentation time was investigated. Patient and nurse characteristics were also tested for associations with observed time differences. Methods: In this prospective study, emergency nurses were followed by observers for a total of 3 months. Patient inclusion was divided over 2 time periods. The difference in the observed medication administration time and the corresponding electronic health record documentation time was measured. The association between patient/nurse characteristics and the difference in medication administration and documentation time was tested with a Spearman correlation or biserial correlation test. Results: In 34 observed patients, the median difference in administration and documentation time was 6.0 minutes (interquartile range 2.0-16.0). In 9 (26.5%) patients, the actual time of medication administration differed more than 15 minutes with the electronic health record documentation time. High temperature, lower saturation, oxygen-dependency, and high Modified Early Warning Score were all correlated with an increasing difference between administration and documentation times. Discussion: A difference between administration and documentation times of medication in the emergency department may be common, especially for more acute patients. This could bias, in part, previously reported time-to-treatment measurements from retrospective research designs, which should be kept in mind when outcomes of retrospective time-to-treatment studies are evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: The increasing prevalence of diabetes suggests a gap between real world and controlled trial effectiveness of lifestyle interventions, but real-world investigations are rare. Electronic medical registration facilitates research on real-world effectiveness, although such investigations may require specific methodology and statistics. We investigated the effects of real-world primary care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used medical records of patients (n=2,549) with T2DM from 10 primary health care centers. A mixed-effects regression model for repeated measurements was used to evaluate the changes in weight and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) over time. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant change in weight (+0.07 kg, P=0.832) and HbA1c (+0.03%, P=0.657) during the observation period of 972 days. Most patients maintained their physical activity level (70%), and 54 % had an insufficient activity level. The variability in the course of weight and HbA1c was because of differences between patients and not between health care providers. CONCLUSION: Despite effective lifestyle interventions in controlled trial settings, we found that real-world primary care is only able to stabilize weight and HbA1c in patients with T2DM over time. Medical registration can be used to monitor the actual effectiveness of interventions in primary care.
