Hands-Free Communication Technology

Dunphy, Heather; Finlay, Juli; Lemaire, Jane B; MacNairn, Ian Adam Smith; Wallace, Jean E.

doi:10.1097/nna.0b013e31822a7301

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Implementation of WCDs in the ICU improved communication by making it easier to get help without leaving the patient's room resulting in less interruption in care. This is similar to that reported by VanDenKerkhof and colleagues (), Dunphy, Finlay, Lemaire, MacNairn, and Wallace (), and de Grood et al () where they noted benefits of the technology related to efficiencies in multitasking and fewer interruptions in patient care, while limitations included technological difficulties. Further, these authors also identified the theme of feelings of stress with wireless device use and which was associated with range limitations and "dead" spots, patient confidentiality, and patient care interruptions, also a major finding in our study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Wireless Communication in Clinical Environments with Unique Needs

Wilson

Duhn

González

et al. 2014

Journal for Healthcare Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wireless technology in healthcare has been associated with communication-related improvements in workflow; however, there are barriers to adoption. This study examined predictors of use of wireless communication devices (WCDs) in environments with unique needs (i.e., intensive care unit [ICU]). Nurses were recruited in the ICU to complete a paper questionnaire to assess their willingness to use WCDs. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was used to assess attitudes, subjective norms, perceived control, and behavioral intent. Responses included Likert scale scores and open-ended questions. Data were collected before and following the implementation of WCDs in ICU. The combined effects of attitudes, perceived control and subjective norms on behavioral intent were tested using the general linear model. The narrative data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Attitudes and subjective norms were predictors of behavioral intent to use WCDs preimplementation but not postimplementation. Differences in the factors affecting intent to use WCDs between the ICU and the surgical unit may be related to the unique nature of the critical care environment, and to the lack of a comprehensive preimplementation strategy. A study examining predictors of use on a general inpatient unit where a comprehensive implementation strategy was not employed would provide insight into whether these findings are related to the implementation strategy or the unique nature of the critical care environment. Improved understanding of the function and application of innovative technology at the point of care, and attention to the process of implementation may improve adoption of this potentially beneficial device.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Wireless Communication in Clinical Environments with Unique Needs

Wilson

Duhn

González

et al. 2014

Journal for Healthcare Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future Study ................................................................................................ 34 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 35 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 37 APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 45 Table 3 Frequencies of Staff Perceptions on Improved Communication,Workflow Efficiency,and Patient Care Quality ..................................................... 26 Table 4 Descriptive statistics for Perceptions on Communication,Workflow Efficiency,and Patient Care Quality ..................................................... 28 Breslin, Greskovich, & Turisco, 2004;Cooney, Banbury, & Plunkett, 2018;De Grood et al, 2012;Dunphy, Finlay, Lemaire, MacNairn, & Wallace, 2011;Ernst, Weiss, & Reitsema, 2013;Fang et al, 2018;Friend, Jennings, Copenhaver, & Levine, 2017;Vandenkerkhof, Hall, Wilson, Gay, & Duhn, 2009;Wilson et al, 2014). To deliver quality care, effective communication must transpire between healthcare team members (Propp et al, 2010).…”

Section: VImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…News and studies evaluating the effectiveness of a wearable, lightweight, voice-controlled, hands-free, wireless communication device (HWCD) providing synchronous, closed-loop or bidirectional, and asynchronous communications technology started getting published (Breslin et al, 2004;Joch, 2004;"University Hospital," 2004). Several studies evaluating the effectiveness of the HWCD technology (developed by Vocera® Communications, San Jose, CA) across a variety of clinical environments that include the perioperative setting (Jacques, France, Pilla, Lai, & Higgins, 2006;Richardson, Shah-Hosseini, Fiadjoe, Ash, & Rehman, 2011), general surgical unit (Vandenkerkhof et al, 2009), medical unit (De Grood et al, 2012;Dunphy et al, 2011), and emergency department (Ernst et al, 2013;Richards & Harris, 2011)…”

Section: VImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Positive results were anticipated, but not to the extent the survey generated. The HWCD was expected to deliver the value of efficiency because of the time it saves staff from walking back and forth to the nursing stations to make calls or physically searching for others around the unit to relay information (Breslin et al, 2004;Cooney et al, 2018;Dunphy et al, 2011;Friend et al, 2017;Richardson & Ash, 2010;Richardson et al, 2011;Vandenkerkhof et al, 2009;Wilson et al, 2013). These communication barriers may lead to a care quality or safety risk (Cooney et al, 2018;Pemmasani et al, 2014;Welton et al, 2006).…”

Section: Relationship Between Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These communication barriers may lead to a care quality or safety risk (Cooney et al, 2018;Pemmasani et al, 2014;Welton et al, 2006). The ability of the device to provide instant and bidirectional communication was its most compelling advantage (Dunphy et al, 2011;Erst et al, 2013;Fang et al, 2018;Friend et al, 2017). Its features that allow the user to accept calls handsfree, record messages, and reminders, have the flexibility to call people by role, send announcements (broadcasts) to specific groups, and its lightweight design were additional benefits strengthening its value.…”

Section: Relationship Between Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Outcomes of Communication, Workflow Efficiency, & Patient Care Quality Resulting from a Hands-free, Wireless Communication Device

Carreon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I would like to convey my heartfelt thanks to my doctoral project chair. Dr. Danette Dutra, and my mentor, Dr. Nicolette Estrada. I will always be grateful for all the guidance and support you so generously gave throughout this journey. Your wisdom has helped shape this project. Thank you to my committee member, Revena Gantuangco, for her support and friendship. Montina Dudley-Alford and Jacob Nur, for their invaluable assistance in the implementation of this project. Also, my aunt Norma McCurdy, for her phone calls and text messages of encouragement and love. DEDICATION This doctoral project is dedicated to my two boys, Jed and Jake. I love you with everything in me. Both of you are the reasons I strive daily. On many difficult days, your smiles, the sound of your laughter, and your warm hugs were all the fuel I needed to keep on moving forward. Know that I'll always be here for you no matter what. This project is also dedicated to my husband, Joel. I could not have completed this without your love and support. You stepped in and took care of everything when I had to focus and write. This accomplishment is as much yours as it is mine. I am blessed to have you as my partner in life. Lastly, I dedicate this to my late father. I will always be grateful for the values of good education, hard work, and humility you have imparted. You have always believed in me even when I didn't believe in myself. This is for you, Dad.

show abstract

Benefits, barriers, and facilitators of using speech recognition technology in nursing documentation and reporting: A cross‐sectional study

Dinari,

Bahaadinbeigy,

Bassiri

et al. 2023

Health Science Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Nursing reports are necessary for clinical communication and provide an accurate reflection of nursing assessments, care provided, changes in clinical status, and patient-related information to support the multidisciplinary team to provide individualized care. Nurses always face challenges in recording and documenting nursing reports. Speech recognition systems (SRS), as one of the documentation technologies, can play a potential role in recording medical reports. Therefore, this study seeks to identify the barriers, benefits, and facilitators of utilizing speech recognition technology in nursing reports. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional was conducted through a researchermade questionnaire in 2022. Invitations were sent to 200 ICU nurses working in the three educational hospitals of Imam Reza (AS), Qaem and Imam Zaman in Mashhad city (Iran), 125 of whom accepted our invitation. Finally, 73 nurses included the study based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0.Results: According to the nurses, "paperwork reduction" (3.96, ±1.96), "performance improvement" (3.96, ±0.93), and "cost reduction" (3.95, ±1.07) were the most common benefits of using the SRS. "Lack of specialized, technical, and experienced staff to teach nurses how to work with speech recognition systems" (3.59, ±1.18), "insufficient training of nurses" (3.59, ±1.11), and "need to edit and control quality and correct documents" (3.59, ±1.03) were the most common barriers to using SRS.As well as "ability to fully review documentation processes" (3.62, ±1.13), "creation of integrated data in record documentation" (3.58, ±1.15), "possibility of error correction for nurses" (3.51, ±1.16) were the most common facilitators. There was no significant relationship between nurses' demographic information and the benefits, barriers, and facilitators.Conclusions: By providing information on the benefits, barriers, and facilitators of using this technology, hospital managers, nursing managers, and information

show abstract

Hands-Free Communication Technology

Cited by 8 publications

References 10 publications

Wireless Communication in Clinical Environments with Unique Needs

Wireless Communication in Clinical Environments with Unique Needs

Outcomes of Communication, Workflow Efficiency, & Patient Care Quality Resulting from a Hands-free, Wireless Communication Device

Benefits, barriers, and facilitators of using speech recognition technology in nursing documentation and reporting: A cross‐sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About