Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16419342

Handheld computer software for school nurses.

Elisabeth Ann Murphy
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

School nurses used computers in the 1980s, the Internet in the 1990s, and are embracing handheld computers in the first decade of the 21st century to improve their practice. The purpose of this article is to provide information about handheld computers and software applications that school nurses can use in day-to-day, emergency, and disaster situations. Handheld computers help school nurses to make decisions based on accurate and up-to-date information, and to practice evidence-based nursing. Evidence-based nursing is the process by which nurses make clinical decisions using the best available research evidence, their clinical expertise, and patient preferences.

Explore related subjects

Computers, HandheldHumansInformation ServicesInternetSchool NursingSoftwareTerminology as TopicJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Elisabeth Ann Murphy. 2005. Handheld computer software for school nurses.. https://doi.org/10.1177/10598405050210061101

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Calculating early warning scores--a classroom comparison of pen and paper and hand-held computer methods.

To assist in the early detection of critical illness, many hospitals now use a "track and trigger" system that allocates points to routine vital signs measurements on the basis of their derangement from an arbitrarily agreed "normal" range. These points are summed to provide an early warning score (EWS). Little is known about the accuracy with which EWS are calculated and charted. We compared the speed and accuracy of charting the weighted value attributed to each vital sign, and of calculating the EWS, using the traditional pen and paper method with that using a specially programmed, personal digital assistant (VitalPAC). Incorrect entries or omissions occurred in 24 (29%) of 84 EWS computed using pen/paper compared to 8 (10%) computed using the VitalPAC method. Fewer incorrect clinical actions were indicated using EWS derived via the VitalPAC method (4/84, 5%) than from those calculated using pen/paper (12/84, 14%). The mean time (+/-S.D.) taken for participants to calculate and chart a set of weighted values and EWS using the pen/paper method was 67.6+/-35.3 s (n=84). The corresponding time taken to enter a set of physiological data using the VitalPAC was 43.0+/-23.5 s (n=84). By comparison with the conventional pen/paper method, the use of VitalPAC was on average 1.6-times faster. The use of a device such as VitalPAC offers significant advantages both in speed and accuracy of recording of EWS.

Computers, Handheld↗
PubMed2006

Performance of drug-drug interaction software for personal digital assistants.

BACKGROUND: Personal digital assistants (PDAs) allow healthcare professionals to check for potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) at the point of care, reducing the need to consult traditional references. However, PDAs can only be as effective as the software programs they use. OBJECTIVE: To examine the ability of DDI software programs manufactured for Palm OS-compatible PDAs in detecting clinically important DDIs. METHODS: Eight PDA software programs were assessed for sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for 16 well-documented DDIs contained within 6 simulated patient profiles. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the software programs ranged from 0.81 to 1.0, specificity ranged from 0.52 to 1.0, positive predictive values ranged from 0.62 to 1.0, and negative predictive values ranged from 0.88 to 1.0. Five programs scored perfect sensitivity scores: DrugIx, ePocrates Rx, ePocrates Rx Pro, Lexi-Interact, and the Tarascon pocket Pharmacopoeia. Of these, the ePocrates programs scored the highest in specificity (0.9), while Lexi-Interact and the Tarascon pocket Pharmacopoeia scored considerably lower (0.52). MosbyIx was the only program to score a 1.0 in specificity; however, its sensitivity was just 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: ePocrates Rx and ePocrates Rx Pro scored greater than or equal to 90% in regard to both sensitivity and specificity, making them the most reliable in detecting the clinically relevant interactions studied without the distraction of detecting those of no clinical significance. In addition, ePocrates Rx is updated regularly and is easily accessible on the Internet at no cost.

Computers, Handheld↗