BACKGROUND:Mobile applications or 'apps' intended to help people manage their health and chronic conditions are widespread and gaining in popularity. However, little is known about their acceptability and usability for lowincome, racially/ethnically diverse populations who experience a disproportionate burden of chronic disease and its complications. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the usability of existing mobile health applications ("apps") for diabetes, depression, and caregiving, in order to facilitate development and tailoring of patient-facing apps for diverse populations. DESIGN: Usability testing, a mixed-methods approach that includes interviewing and direct observation of participant technology use, was conducted with participants (n = 9 caregivers; n = 10 patients with depression; and n = 10 patients with diabetes) on a total of 11 of the most popular health apps (four diabetes apps, four depression apps, and three caregiver apps) on both iPad and Android tablets. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were diverse: 15 (58 %) African Americans, seven (27 %) Whites, two (8 %) Asians, two (8 %) Latinos with either diabetes, depression, or who were caregivers. MAIN MEASURES: Participants were given conditionspecific tasks, such as entering a blood glucose value into a diabetes app. Participant interviews were video recorded and were coded using standard methods to evaluate attempts and completions of tasks. We performed inductive coding of participant comments to identify emergent themes. KEY RESULTS: Participants completed 79 of 185 (43 %) tasks across 11 apps without assistance. Three themes emerged from participant comments: lack of confidence with technology, frustration with design features and navigation, and interest in having technology to support their self-management.CONCLUSIONS: App developers should employ participatory design strategies in order to have an impact on chronic conditions such as diabetes and depression that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. While patients express interest in using technologies for selfmanagement, current tools are not consistently usable for diverse patients.

With rising smartphone ownership, mobile health applications (mHealth apps) have the potential to support high-need, high-cost populations in managing their health. While the number of available mHealth apps has grown substantially, no clear strategy has emerged on how providers should evaluate and recommend such apps to patients. Key stakeholders, including medical professional societies, insurers, and policy makers, have largely avoided formally recommending apps, which forces patients to obtain recommendations from other sources. To help stakeholders overcome barriers to reviewing and recommending apps, we evaluated 137 patient-facing mHealth apps-those intended for use by patients to manage their health-that were highly rated by consumers and recommended by experts and that targeted high-need, high-cost populations. We found that there is a wide variety of apps in the marketplace but that few apps address the needs of the patients who could benefit the most. We also found that consumers' ratings were poor indications of apps' clinical utility or usability and that most apps did not respond appropriately when a user entered potentially dangerous health information. Going forward, data privacy and security will continue to be major concerns in the dissemination of mHealth apps.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Despite the broad adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems across the continuum of care, safety problems persist. OBJECTIVE To measure the safety performance of operational EHRs in hospitals across the country during a 10-year period.

No abstract

These data suggest that implementation of an EHR had little effect on overall visit time in specialty clinics.

BackgroundSelf-management is essential to caring for high-need, high-cost (HNHC) populations. Advances in mobile phone technology coupled with increased availability and adoption of health-focused mobile apps have made self-management more achievable, but the extent and quality of the literature supporting their use is not well defined.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review was to assess the breadth, quality, bias, and types of outcomes measured in the literature supporting the use of apps targeting HNHC populations.MethodsData sources included articles in PubMed and MEDLINE (National Center for Biotechnology Information), EMBASE (Elsevier), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (EBSCO), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), and the NTIS (National Technical Information Service) Bibliographic Database (EBSCO) published since 2008. We selected studies involving use of patient-facing iOS or Android mobile health apps. Extraction was performed by 1 reviewer; 40 randomly selected articles were evaluated by 2 reviewers to assess agreement.ResultsOur final analysis included 175 studies. The populations most commonly targeted by apps included patients with obesity, physical handicaps, diabetes, older age, and dementia. Only 30.3% (53/175) of the apps studied in the reviewed literature were identifiable and available to the public through app stores. Many of the studies were cross-sectional analyses (42.9%, 75/175), small (median number of participants=31, interquartile range 11.0-207.2, maximum 11,690), or performed by an app’s developers (61.1%, 107/175). Of the 175 studies, only 36 (20.6%, 36/175) studies evaluated a clinical outcome.ConclusionsMost apps described in the literature could not be located on the iOS or Android app stores, and existing research does not robustly evaluate the potential of mobile apps. Whereas apps may be useful in patients with chronic conditions, data do not support this yet. Although we had 2-3 reviewers to screen and assess abstract eligibility, only 1 reviewer abstracted the data. This is one limitation of our study. With respect to the 40 articles (22.9%, 40/175) that were assigned to 2 reviewers (of which 3 articles were excluded), inter-rater agreement was significant on the majority of items (17 of 30) but fair-to-moderate on others.

BackgroundElectronic health records (EHR) can improve safety via computerised physician order entry with clinical decision support, designed in part to alert providers and prevent potential adverse drug events at entry and before they reach the patient. However, early evidence suggested performance at preventing adverse drug events was mixed.MethodsWe used data from a national, longitudinal sample of 1527 hospitals in the USA from 2009 to 2016 who took a safety performance assessment test using simulated medication orders to test how well their EHR prevented medication errors with potential for patient harm. We calculated the descriptive statistics on performance on the assessment over time, by years of hospital experience with the test and across hospital characteristics. Finally, we used ordinary least squares regression to identify hospital characteristics associated with higher test performance.ResultsThe average hospital EHR system correctly prevented only 54.0% of potential adverse drug events tested on the 44-order safety performance assessment in 2009; this rose to 61.6% in 2016. Hospitals that took the assessment multiple times performed better in subsequent years than those taking the test the first time, from 55.2% in the first year of test experience to 70.3% in the eighth, suggesting efforts to participate in voluntary self-assessment and improvement may be helpful in improving medication safety performance.ConclusionHospital medication order safety performance has improved over time but is far from perfect. The specifics of EHR medication safety implementation and improvement play a key role in realising the benefits of computerising prescribing, as organisations have substantial latitude in terms of what they implement. Intentional quality improvement efforts appear to be a critical part of high safety performance and may indicate the importance of a culture of safety.