SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Handheld computers can be used to make calculations, share articles with colleagues, store contact information, and even save lives. Translation software can facilitate communication with non-English-speaking patients. You can find out the cost of medications with drug reference software. Make the ED schedules accessible, so that staff can volunteer to fill in gaps.
Handheld computer sales are increasing rapidly in the United States and worldwide. The convenience and communication features will continue to improve and become commonplace in our lives. Using a handheld computer in the dental environment is efficient and potentially aids the dentist in delivering a higher standard of care to patients.
Handheld computers have become a valuable and popular tool in various fields of medicine. A systematic review of articles was undertaken to summarize the current literature regarding the use of handheld devices in medicine. A variety of articles were identified, and relevant information for various medical fields was summarized. The literature search covered general information about handheld devices, the use of these devices to access medical literature, electronic pharmacopoeias, patient tracking, medical education, research, business management, e-prescribing, patient confidentiality, and costs as well as specialty-specific uses for personal digital assistants (PDAs). The authors concluded that only a small number of articles provide evidence-based information about the use of PDAs in medicine. The majority of articles provide descriptive information, which is nevertheless of value. This article aims to increase the awareness among physicians about the potential roles for handheld computers in medicine and to encourage the further evaluation of their use.
The next phase of the digital revolution in medicine is taking place through the dissemination of powerful handheld computers. Handheld computers, or personal digital assistants (PDAs), are no longer considered either a curiosity or a toy. The current handheld computer has many features (Internet access, simple e-mail client software, spreadsheet and database programs, word processing, and digital media) that make it an ideal tool for healthcare providers. Improvements in handwriting recognition, display characteristics, and wireless networking capabilities provide a platform for real-time review of both large static and dynamic repositories of patient data. Although earlier PDA models lacked the ability to display medical images appropriately, current PDAs boast display characteristics that approach low-resolution computer monitors. Although the handheld computer is not yet a reliable option for soft-copy reading, it offers many features that can improve work flow and efficiency for the radiologist. These features include improved personal information management, decision support via access to educational materials, and remote access to radiology-related information systems.
BACKGROUND: Handheld computers are valuable practice tools. It is important for residency programs to introduce their trainees and faculty to this technology. This article describes a formal strategy to introduce handheld computing to a family practice residency program. METHODS: Objectives were selected for the handheld computer training program that reflected skills physicians would find useful in practice. TRGpro handheld computers preloaded with a suite of medical reference programs, a medical calculator, and a database program were supplied to participants. Training consisted of four 1-hour modules each with a written evaluation quiz. Participants completed a self-assessment questionnaire after the program to determine their ability to meet each objective. RESULTS: Sixty of the 62 participants successfully completed the training program. The mean composite score on quizzes was 36 of 40 (90%), with no significant differences by level of residency training. The mean self-ratings of participants across all objectives was 3.31 of 4.00. Third-year residents had higher mean self-ratings than others (mean of group, 3.62). Participants were very comfortable with practical skills, such as using drug reference software, and less comfortable with theory, such as knowing the different types of handheld computers available. CONCLUSION: Structured training is a successful strategy for introducing handheld computing to a residency program.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We examined the use of inexpensive handheld computers in documenting resident procedures. With a handheld computer, data is entered at the time of the procedure, eliminating the problem of double entry. METHODS: Connectivity and ease of use were important factors considered when choosing a handheld computer. All residents received a handheld computer for data entry. Residency staff downloaded the data to a desktop computer. At the same time, data useful to residents was placed on their devices. The process of generating individual and program reports required 2 hours of staff time each month. Survey data regarding use and acceptance by residents was collected. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of residents collected data on their handheld computer. Those residents responding to a survey felt that the handheld computer was "very useful," and 73% reported daily use. Initial costs were $310 per resident. CONCLUSIONS: Handheld computers streamlined the collection of procedure data for family practice residents. Handheld computers assisted in producing timely and useful procedural reports for both residents and the residency program. Additional uses of handheld computers were beneficial to the program and the residents.
Handheld computers offer a variety of capabilities useful to dietitians in clinical and other settings. Currently, such devices are not available for testing or inspection before purchase. This limits the potential purchaser's ability to compare features and capabilities among various brands and models during the selection process. In this article we compare the anthropometric, biochemical, and dietary assessment and nutrition support computational capabilities of five of the most popular brands and models of handheld computers. Results are presented in tabular form. We present a strategy to guide the selection and purchase of an appropriate handheld computer for nutrition assessment and support that has the features the purchaser desires. The results of this comparison indicate that there is a wide variation in features, capabilities, and prices among different models. The decision as to which model is most efficient depends ultimately on the individual user's unique needs.
Handheld computers are commonly used in clinical practice and often considered invaluable by physicians. Though full of promise, the technology is still costly and literature assessing its real use in clinical practice remains scarce. In an effort to better understand how Personal Digital Assistants (PDA) can be utilized as clinical tools, we designed a study that closely monitored the use of a selection of handheld applications by a cohort of interns in a service of Internal Medicine. Information gathered about actual use of the mobile applications offer valuable insights on usage patterns of tools that promise to be become an important part of our clinical practice in the years to come, and will hopefully help guide future developments.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the uses of handheld computers (also called personal digital assistants, or PDAs) in family practice residency programs in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: In November 2000, the authors mailed a questionnaire to the program directors of all American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and American College of Osteopathic Family Practice (ACOFP) residency programs in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Data and patterns of the use and non-use of handheld computers were identified. RESULTS: Approximately 50 percent (306 of 610) of the programs responded to the survey. Two thirds of the programs reported that handheld computers were used in their residencies, and an additional 14 percent had plans for implementation within 24 months. Both the Palm and the Windows CE operating systems were used, with the Palm operating system the most common. Military programs had the highest rate of use (8 of 10 programs, 80 percent), and osteopathic programs had the lowest (23 of 55 programs, 42 percent). Of programs that reported handheld computer use, 45 percent had required handheld computer applications that are used uniformly by all users. Funding for handheld computers and related applications was non-budgeted in 76percent of the programs in which handheld computers were used. In programs providing a budget for handheld computers, the average annual budget per user was 461.58 dollars. Interested faculty or residents, rather than computer information services personnel, performed upkeep and maintenance of handheld computers in 72 percent of the programs in which the computers are used. In addition to the installed calendar, memo pad, and address book, the most common clinical uses of handheld computers in the programs were as medication reference tools, electronic textbooks, and clinical computational or calculator-type programs. CONCLUSIONS: Handheld computers are widely used in family practice residency programs in the United States. Although handheld computers were designed as electronic organizers, in family practice residencies they are used as medication reference tools, electronic textbooks, and clinical computational programs and to track activities that were previously associated with desktop database applications.
Although published reports describe specific handheld computer applications in medical training, we know very little yet about how, and how well, handheld computing fits into the spectrum of information resources available for patient care and physician training. This paper reports preliminary quantitative and qualitative results from an evaluation study designed to track changes in computer usage patterns and computer-related attitudes before and after introduction of handheld computing. Pre-implementation differences between residents and faculty s usage patterns are interpreted in terms of a "work role" construct. We hypothesize that over time residents and faculty will adopt, adapt, or abandon handheld computing according to how, and how well, this technology supports their successful completion of work role-related tasks. This hypothesis will be tested in the second phase of this pre- and post-implementation study.
Recent advances in handheld computer hardware and software may provide alternatives to paper-based data collection methods. The authors compared data collected with paper forms to data collected with handheld computer-based forms in a field observation study of alcohol purchase attempts at 47 community festivals in a large metropolitan area. Agreement between data collected with paper forms and data collected with handheld computers was greater than 95%. Computer-based forms handled branching patterns better and yielded data that were immediately available for analyses. Paper forms handled written comments better. Handheld computers are a feasible alternative to paper forms for field data collection.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Computing technology has the potential to improve health care management but is often underutilized. Handheld computers are versatile and relatively inexpensive, bringing the benefits of computers to the bedside. We evaluated the role of this technology for managing patient data and accessing medical reference information, in an academic intensive-care unit (ICU). METHODS: Palm III series handheld devices were given to the ICU team, each installed with medical reference information, schedules, and contact numbers. Users underwent a 1-hour training session introducing the hardware and software. Various patient data management applications were assessed during the study period. Qualitative assessment of the benefits, drawbacks, and suggestions was performed by an independent company, using focus groups. An objective comparison between a paper and electronic handheld textbook was achieved using clinical scenario tests. RESULTS: During the 6-month study period, the 20 physicians and 6 paramedical staff who used the handheld devices found them convenient and functional but suggested more comprehensive training and improved search facilities. Comparison of the handheld computer with the conventional paper text revealed equivalence. Access to computerized patient information improved communication, particularly with regard to long-stay patients, but changes to the software and the process were suggested. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of this technology was well received despite differences in users' familiarity with the devices. Handheld computers have potential in the ICU, but systems need to be developed specifically for the critical-care environment.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.