Kevin J. O’Leary, MD, MS

Inappropriate resource utilization is a pervasive problem in healthcare, and it has received increasing emphasis over the last few years as financial strain on the healthcare system has grown. This waste has led to new models of care—bundled care payments, accountable care organizations, and merit-based payment systems. Professional organizations have also emphasized the provision of high-value care and avoiding unnecessary diagnostic testing and treatment. In April 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) launched the Choosing Wisely initiative to assist professional societies in putting forth recommendations on clinical circumstances in which particular tests and procedures should be avoided.

Until recently, teaching cost-effective care was not widely considered an important part of internal medicine residency programs. In a 2010 study surveying residents about resource utilization feedback, only 37% of internal medicine residents reported receiving any feedback on resource utilization and 20% reported receiving regular feedback.¹ These findings are especially significant in the broader context of national healthcare spending, as there is evidence that physicians who train in high-spending localities tend to have high-spending patterns later in their careers.² Another study showed similar findings when looking at region of training relative to success at recognizing high-value care on ABIM test questions.³ The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has developed the Clinical Learning Environment Review program to help address this need. This program provides feedback to teaching hospitals about their success at teaching residents and fellows to provide high-value medical care.

Given the current zeitgeist of emphasizing cost-effective, high-value care, appropriate utilization of routine labs is one area that stands out as an especially low-hanging fruit. The Society of Hospital Medicine, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, recommended minimizing routine lab draws in hospitalized patients with clinical and laboratory stability.⁴ Certainly, avoiding unnecessary routine lab draws is ideal because it saves patients the pain of superfluous phlebotomy, allows phlebotomy resources to be directed to blood draws with actual clinical utility, and saves money. There is also good evidence that hospital-acquired anemia, an effect of overuse of routine blood draws, has an adverse impact on morbidity and mortality in postmyocardial infarction patients^5,6 and more generally in hospitalized patients.⁷

Several studies have examined lab utilization on teaching services. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of test utilization is attributable to the interns (45%) and residents (26%), rather than attendings.⁸ Another study showed that internal medicine residents at one center had a much stronger self-reported predilection for ordering daily recurring routine labs rather than one-time labs for the following morning when admitting patients and when picking up patients, as compared with hospitalist attendings.⁹ This self-reported tendency translated into ordering more complete blood counts and basic chemistry panels per patient per day. A qualitative study looking at why internal medicine and general surgery residents ordered unnecessary labs yielded a number of responses, including ingrained habit, lack of price transparency, clinical uncertainty, belief that the attending expected it, and absence of a culture emphasizing resource utilization.¹⁰

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Kurtzman and colleagues report on a mixed-methods study looking at internal medicine resident engagement at their center with an electronic medical record–associated dashboard providing feedback on lab utilization.¹¹ Over a 6-month period, the residents randomized into the dashboard group received weekly e-mails while on service with a brief synopsis of their lab utilization relative to their peers and also a link to a dashboard with a time-series display of their relative lab ordering. While the majority of residents (74%) opened the e-mail, only a minority (21%) actually accessed the dashboard. Also, there was not a statistically significant relationship between dashboard use and lab ordering, though there was a trend to decreased lab ordering associated with opening the dashboard. The residents who participated in a focus group expressed both positive and negative opinions on the dashboard.

This is one example of social comparison feedback, which aims to improve performance by providing information to physicians on their performance relative to their peers. It has been shown to be effective in other areas of clinical medicine like limiting antibiotic overutilization in patients with upper respiratory infections.¹² One study examining social comparison feedback and objective feedback found that social comparison feedback improved performance for a simulated work task more for high performers but less for low performers than standard objective feedback.¹³ The utility of this type of feedback has not been extensively studied in healthcare.

However, the audit and feedback strategy, of which social comparison feedback is a subtype, has been extensively studied in healthcare. A 2012 Cochrane Review found that audit and feedback leads to “small but potentially important improvements in professional practice.”¹⁴ They found a wide variation in the effect of feedback among the 140 studies they analyzed. The factors strongly associated with a significant improvement after feedback were as follows: poor performance at baseline, a colleague or supervisor as the one providing the audit and feedback, repetitive feedback, feedback given both verbally and in writing, and clear advice or guidance on how to improve. Many of these components were missing from this study—that may be one reason the authors did not find a significant relationship between dashboard use and lab ordering.

A number of interventions, however, have been shown to decrease lab utilization, including unbundling of the components of the metabolic panel and disallowing daily recurring lab orders,¹⁵ fee displays,¹⁶ cost reminders,¹⁷ didactics and data feedback,¹⁸ and a multifaceted approach (didactics, monthly feedback, checklist, and financial incentives).¹⁹ A multipronged strategy, including an element of education, audit and feedback, hard-stop limits on redundant lab ordering, and fee information is likely to be the most successful strategy to reducing lab overutilization for both residents and attending physicians. Resource overutilization is a multifactorial problem, and multifactorial problems call for multifaceted solutions. Moreover, it may be necessary to employ both “carrot” and “stick” elements to such an approach, rewarding physicians who practice appropriate stewardship, but also penalizing practitioners who do not appropriately adjust their lab ordering tendencies after receiving feedback showing overuse.

Physician behavior is difficult to change, and there are many reasons why physicians order inappropriate tests and studies, including provider uncertainty, fear of malpractice litigation, and inadequate time to consider the utility of a test. Audit and feedback should be integrated into residency curriculums focusing on high-value care, in which hospitalists should play a central role. If supervising attendings are not integrated into such curriculums and continue to both overorder tests themselves and allow residents to do so, then the informal curriculum will trump the formal one.

Physicians respond to incentives, and appropriately designed incentives should be developed to help steer them to order only those tests and studies that are medically indicated. Such incentives must be provided alongside audit and feedback with appropriate goals that account for patient complexity. Ultimately, routine lab ordering is just one area of overutilization in hospital medicine, and the techniques that are successful at reducing overuse in this arena will need to be applied to other aspects of medicine like imaging and medication prescribing.

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Inappropriate resource utilization is a pervasive problem in healthcare, and it has received increasing emphasis over the last few years as financial strain on the healthcare system has grown. This waste has led to new models of care—bundled care payments, accountable care organizations, and merit-based payment systems. Professional organizations have also emphasized the provision of high-value care and avoiding unnecessary diagnostic testing and treatment. In April 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) launched the Choosing Wisely initiative to assist professional societies in putting forth recommendations on clinical circumstances in which particular tests and procedures should be avoided.

Until recently, teaching cost-effective care was not widely considered an important part of internal medicine residency programs. In a 2010 study surveying residents about resource utilization feedback, only 37% of internal medicine residents reported receiving any feedback on resource utilization and 20% reported receiving regular feedback.¹ These findings are especially significant in the broader context of national healthcare spending, as there is evidence that physicians who train in high-spending localities tend to have high-spending patterns later in their careers.² Another study showed similar findings when looking at region of training relative to success at recognizing high-value care on ABIM test questions.³ The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has developed the Clinical Learning Environment Review program to help address this need. This program provides feedback to teaching hospitals about their success at teaching residents and fellows to provide high-value medical care.

Given the current zeitgeist of emphasizing cost-effective, high-value care, appropriate utilization of routine labs is one area that stands out as an especially low-hanging fruit. The Society of Hospital Medicine, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, recommended minimizing routine lab draws in hospitalized patients with clinical and laboratory stability.⁴ Certainly, avoiding unnecessary routine lab draws is ideal because it saves patients the pain of superfluous phlebotomy, allows phlebotomy resources to be directed to blood draws with actual clinical utility, and saves money. There is also good evidence that hospital-acquired anemia, an effect of overuse of routine blood draws, has an adverse impact on morbidity and mortality in postmyocardial infarction patients^5,6 and more generally in hospitalized patients.⁷

Several studies have examined lab utilization on teaching services. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of test utilization is attributable to the interns (45%) and residents (26%), rather than attendings.⁸ Another study showed that internal medicine residents at one center had a much stronger self-reported predilection for ordering daily recurring routine labs rather than one-time labs for the following morning when admitting patients and when picking up patients, as compared with hospitalist attendings.⁹ This self-reported tendency translated into ordering more complete blood counts and basic chemistry panels per patient per day. A qualitative study looking at why internal medicine and general surgery residents ordered unnecessary labs yielded a number of responses, including ingrained habit, lack of price transparency, clinical uncertainty, belief that the attending expected it, and absence of a culture emphasizing resource utilization.¹⁰

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Kurtzman and colleagues report on a mixed-methods study looking at internal medicine resident engagement at their center with an electronic medical record–associated dashboard providing feedback on lab utilization.¹¹ Over a 6-month period, the residents randomized into the dashboard group received weekly e-mails while on service with a brief synopsis of their lab utilization relative to their peers and also a link to a dashboard with a time-series display of their relative lab ordering. While the majority of residents (74%) opened the e-mail, only a minority (21%) actually accessed the dashboard. Also, there was not a statistically significant relationship between dashboard use and lab ordering, though there was a trend to decreased lab ordering associated with opening the dashboard. The residents who participated in a focus group expressed both positive and negative opinions on the dashboard.

This is one example of social comparison feedback, which aims to improve performance by providing information to physicians on their performance relative to their peers. It has been shown to be effective in other areas of clinical medicine like limiting antibiotic overutilization in patients with upper respiratory infections.¹² One study examining social comparison feedback and objective feedback found that social comparison feedback improved performance for a simulated work task more for high performers but less for low performers than standard objective feedback.¹³ The utility of this type of feedback has not been extensively studied in healthcare.

However, the audit and feedback strategy, of which social comparison feedback is a subtype, has been extensively studied in healthcare. A 2012 Cochrane Review found that audit and feedback leads to “small but potentially important improvements in professional practice.”¹⁴ They found a wide variation in the effect of feedback among the 140 studies they analyzed. The factors strongly associated with a significant improvement after feedback were as follows: poor performance at baseline, a colleague or supervisor as the one providing the audit and feedback, repetitive feedback, feedback given both verbally and in writing, and clear advice or guidance on how to improve. Many of these components were missing from this study—that may be one reason the authors did not find a significant relationship between dashboard use and lab ordering.

A number of interventions, however, have been shown to decrease lab utilization, including unbundling of the components of the metabolic panel and disallowing daily recurring lab orders,¹⁵ fee displays,¹⁶ cost reminders,¹⁷ didactics and data feedback,¹⁸ and a multifaceted approach (didactics, monthly feedback, checklist, and financial incentives).¹⁹ A multipronged strategy, including an element of education, audit and feedback, hard-stop limits on redundant lab ordering, and fee information is likely to be the most successful strategy to reducing lab overutilization for both residents and attending physicians. Resource overutilization is a multifactorial problem, and multifactorial problems call for multifaceted solutions. Moreover, it may be necessary to employ both “carrot” and “stick” elements to such an approach, rewarding physicians who practice appropriate stewardship, but also penalizing practitioners who do not appropriately adjust their lab ordering tendencies after receiving feedback showing overuse.

Physician behavior is difficult to change, and there are many reasons why physicians order inappropriate tests and studies, including provider uncertainty, fear of malpractice litigation, and inadequate time to consider the utility of a test. Audit and feedback should be integrated into residency curriculums focusing on high-value care, in which hospitalists should play a central role. If supervising attendings are not integrated into such curriculums and continue to both overorder tests themselves and allow residents to do so, then the informal curriculum will trump the formal one.

Physicians respond to incentives, and appropriately designed incentives should be developed to help steer them to order only those tests and studies that are medically indicated. Such incentives must be provided alongside audit and feedback with appropriate goals that account for patient complexity. Ultimately, routine lab ordering is just one area of overutilization in hospital medicine, and the techniques that are successful at reducing overuse in this arena will need to be applied to other aspects of medicine like imaging and medication prescribing.

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Inappropriate resource utilization is a pervasive problem in healthcare, and it has received increasing emphasis over the last few years as financial strain on the healthcare system has grown. This waste has led to new models of care—bundled care payments, accountable care organizations, and merit-based payment systems. Professional organizations have also emphasized the provision of high-value care and avoiding unnecessary diagnostic testing and treatment. In April 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) launched the Choosing Wisely initiative to assist professional societies in putting forth recommendations on clinical circumstances in which particular tests and procedures should be avoided.

Until recently, teaching cost-effective care was not widely considered an important part of internal medicine residency programs. In a 2010 study surveying residents about resource utilization feedback, only 37% of internal medicine residents reported receiving any feedback on resource utilization and 20% reported receiving regular feedback.¹ These findings are especially significant in the broader context of national healthcare spending, as there is evidence that physicians who train in high-spending localities tend to have high-spending patterns later in their careers.² Another study showed similar findings when looking at region of training relative to success at recognizing high-value care on ABIM test questions.³ The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has developed the Clinical Learning Environment Review program to help address this need. This program provides feedback to teaching hospitals about their success at teaching residents and fellows to provide high-value medical care.

Given the current zeitgeist of emphasizing cost-effective, high-value care, appropriate utilization of routine labs is one area that stands out as an especially low-hanging fruit. The Society of Hospital Medicine, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, recommended minimizing routine lab draws in hospitalized patients with clinical and laboratory stability.⁴ Certainly, avoiding unnecessary routine lab draws is ideal because it saves patients the pain of superfluous phlebotomy, allows phlebotomy resources to be directed to blood draws with actual clinical utility, and saves money. There is also good evidence that hospital-acquired anemia, an effect of overuse of routine blood draws, has an adverse impact on morbidity and mortality in postmyocardial infarction patients^5,6 and more generally in hospitalized patients.⁷

Several studies have examined lab utilization on teaching services. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of test utilization is attributable to the interns (45%) and residents (26%), rather than attendings.⁸ Another study showed that internal medicine residents at one center had a much stronger self-reported predilection for ordering daily recurring routine labs rather than one-time labs for the following morning when admitting patients and when picking up patients, as compared with hospitalist attendings.⁹ This self-reported tendency translated into ordering more complete blood counts and basic chemistry panels per patient per day. A qualitative study looking at why internal medicine and general surgery residents ordered unnecessary labs yielded a number of responses, including ingrained habit, lack of price transparency, clinical uncertainty, belief that the attending expected it, and absence of a culture emphasizing resource utilization.¹⁰

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Kurtzman and colleagues report on a mixed-methods study looking at internal medicine resident engagement at their center with an electronic medical record–associated dashboard providing feedback on lab utilization.¹¹ Over a 6-month period, the residents randomized into the dashboard group received weekly e-mails while on service with a brief synopsis of their lab utilization relative to their peers and also a link to a dashboard with a time-series display of their relative lab ordering. While the majority of residents (74%) opened the e-mail, only a minority (21%) actually accessed the dashboard. Also, there was not a statistically significant relationship between dashboard use and lab ordering, though there was a trend to decreased lab ordering associated with opening the dashboard. The residents who participated in a focus group expressed both positive and negative opinions on the dashboard.

This is one example of social comparison feedback, which aims to improve performance by providing information to physicians on their performance relative to their peers. It has been shown to be effective in other areas of clinical medicine like limiting antibiotic overutilization in patients with upper respiratory infections.¹² One study examining social comparison feedback and objective feedback found that social comparison feedback improved performance for a simulated work task more for high performers but less for low performers than standard objective feedback.¹³ The utility of this type of feedback has not been extensively studied in healthcare.

However, the audit and feedback strategy, of which social comparison feedback is a subtype, has been extensively studied in healthcare. A 2012 Cochrane Review found that audit and feedback leads to “small but potentially important improvements in professional practice.”¹⁴ They found a wide variation in the effect of feedback among the 140 studies they analyzed. The factors strongly associated with a significant improvement after feedback were as follows: poor performance at baseline, a colleague or supervisor as the one providing the audit and feedback, repetitive feedback, feedback given both verbally and in writing, and clear advice or guidance on how to improve. Many of these components were missing from this study—that may be one reason the authors did not find a significant relationship between dashboard use and lab ordering.

A number of interventions, however, have been shown to decrease lab utilization, including unbundling of the components of the metabolic panel and disallowing daily recurring lab orders,¹⁵ fee displays,¹⁶ cost reminders,¹⁷ didactics and data feedback,¹⁸ and a multifaceted approach (didactics, monthly feedback, checklist, and financial incentives).¹⁹ A multipronged strategy, including an element of education, audit and feedback, hard-stop limits on redundant lab ordering, and fee information is likely to be the most successful strategy to reducing lab overutilization for both residents and attending physicians. Resource overutilization is a multifactorial problem, and multifactorial problems call for multifaceted solutions. Moreover, it may be necessary to employ both “carrot” and “stick” elements to such an approach, rewarding physicians who practice appropriate stewardship, but also penalizing practitioners who do not appropriately adjust their lab ordering tendencies after receiving feedback showing overuse.

Physician behavior is difficult to change, and there are many reasons why physicians order inappropriate tests and studies, including provider uncertainty, fear of malpractice litigation, and inadequate time to consider the utility of a test. Audit and feedback should be integrated into residency curriculums focusing on high-value care, in which hospitalists should play a central role. If supervising attendings are not integrated into such curriculums and continue to both overorder tests themselves and allow residents to do so, then the informal curriculum will trump the formal one.

Physicians respond to incentives, and appropriately designed incentives should be developed to help steer them to order only those tests and studies that are medically indicated. Such incentives must be provided alongside audit and feedback with appropriate goals that account for patient complexity. Ultimately, routine lab ordering is just one area of overutilization in hospital medicine, and the techniques that are successful at reducing overuse in this arena will need to be applied to other aspects of medicine like imaging and medication prescribing.

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Communication among healthcare professionals is essential for high-quality patient care. However, communication is difficult in hospitals because of heavy workloads, rapidly evolving plans of care, and geographic dispersion of team members. When hospital-based professionals are not in the same place at the same time, they rely on technology to communicate. Pagers have historically been used to support communication in hospitals, but are limited in their capabilities. Several recent small studies have shown that some physicians have started using standard text messaging on smartphones for patient care–related (PCR) messages.^1-3 Although potentially enhancing clinician efficiency, use of standard text messaging for PCR messages raises concern about security risks related to transmission of protected health information. Addressing these concerns are emerging secure mobile messaging applications designed for PCR communication. Although recent studies suggest these applications are well received by users, the adoption rate is largely unknown.^4,5

We conducted a study to see if there was a shift in use of hospital-based communication technologies under way. We surveyed a national sample of hospital-based clinicians to characterize current use of communication technologies, assess potential risks and perceptions related to use of standard text messaging for PCR messages, and characterize the adoption of secure mobile messaging applications designed for PCR communication.

Study Design

The study was a cross-sectional survey of hospitalists—physicians and advanced practice providers whose primary professional focus is care of hospitalized patients. We studied hospitalists because of their role in coordinating care for complex medical patients and because prior studies identified communication as a major component of their work.^6,7 The Northwestern University Institutional Review Board deemed this study exempt.

Survey Instrument

Four investigators (Drs. O’Leary, Liebovitz, Wu, and Reddy) with expertise in interprofessional communication and information technology created a draft survey based in part on results of prior studies assessing clinicians’ use of smartphones and standard text messaging for PCR communication.^1,3 In the first section of the survey, we asked respondents which technologies were provided by their organization and which technologies they used for PCR communication. In the second section, we asked respondents about their use and perceptions of standard text messaging for PCR communication. In the third section, we asked about implementation and adoption of secure mobile messaging applications at their hospital. In the fourth and final section, we asked for demographic information.

We randomly selected 8 attendees of the 2015 Midwest Hospital Medicine Conference and invited them to participate in a focus group that would review a paper version of the draft survey and recommend revisions. Using the group’s feedback, we revised the ordinal response scale for questions related to standard text messaging and made other minor edits. We then created an Internet-based version of the survey and pilot-tested it with 8 hospitalists from 4 diverse hospitalist groups within the Northwestern Medicine Health System. We made additional minor edits based on pilot-test feedback.

Sampling Strategy

We used the largest hospitalist database maintained by the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM). This database includes information on more than 28,000 individuals, representing SHM members and nonmembers who had participated in organizational events. In addition to clinically active hospitalists, the database includes non-hospitalists and clinically inactive hospitalists. We used this database to try to capture the largest possible number of potentially eligible hospitalists.

Survey Administration

We administered the survey in collaboration with SHM staff. E-mails that included a link to the survey on the Survey Monkey website were sent by SHM staff to individuals within the database. These e-mails were sent through Real Magnet, an e-mail marketing platform⁸ that allowed the SHM staff to determine the number of individuals who received and opened the e-mail and the number who clicked on the survey link. To try to promote participation, we offered respondents the chance to enter a lottery to win one of four $50 gift certificates. The initial e-mail was sent in April 2016, a reminder in May 2016, and a final reminder in July 2016.

Data Analysis

We calculated descriptive statistics of participants’ demographic characteristics. We estimated nonresponse bias by comparing demographic characteristics across waves of respondents using analysis of variance, t tests, and χ² tests. This method is based on the finding that characteristics of late respondents often resemble those of nonrespondents.⁹ We collapsed response categories for communication technologies to simplify interpretation. For example, numeric pagers, alphanumeric pagers, and 2-way pagers were collapsed into a pagers category. We used t tests and χ² tests to assess for associations between receipt of standard text messages for PCR communication and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, practice location, and hospital teaching status. Similarly, we used t tests and χ² tests to explore associations between implementation of secure mobile messaging application and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, practice location, and hospital teaching status. All statistical analyses were performed with Stata Release 11.2 (StataCorp).

Participant Characteristics

Overall, the survey link was sent to 28,870 e-mail addresses. Addresses for which e-mails were undeliverable or for which the e-mail was never opened were excluded, yielding a total of 5,786 eligible respondents in the sample. After rejecting 42 clinically inactive individuals, 70 individuals who responded to only the initial item, and 27 duplicates, a total of 620 participant surveys were included in the final analysis. The adjusted response rate was 11.0%.

As shown in Table 1, mean (SD) respondent age was 42.9 (10.0) years, nearly half of the respondents were female, nearly a third were of nonwhite race, an overwhelming majority were physicians, and workplaces were in a variety of hospital settings. The sample size used to calculate demographic characteristics varied from 538 to 549 because of missing data for these items. We found no significant differences in demographic characteristics of respondents across the 3 survey waves, suggesting a lack of survey response bias (Supplemental Table).

Provision and Use of Communication Technologies for PCR Communication

Pagers were provided to the majority of respondents by their hospitals (79.8%, 495/620). Other devices were provided much less frequently, with 21.0% (130/620) reporting their organization provided a smartphone, 20.2% (125/620) a mobile phone, and 4.4% (27/620) a hands-free communication device. Organizations provided no device to 8.2% (51/620) of respondents and an “other” device to 5.5% (34/620).

An overwhelming majority used multiple technologies to receive PCR communication, with 17.7% (110/620) of respondents indicating use of 2 technologies, 22.7% (141/620) use of 3 technologies, and 49.4% (306/620) use of more than 3 technologies. The distribution of the most common ways respondents received PCR communication is shown in Table 2. Pagers were the most common form of technology, with 49.0% (304/620) indicating this was the primary way they received PCR communication. Being called on a mobile phone provided by the organization was the second most common form of receiving PCR communication (11.0%, 68/620), followed by standard text messaging (9.5%, 59/620) and mobile secure messaging using an application approved by the organization (9.0%, 56/620).

Participants’ Experiences With Standard Text Messaging for PCR Communication

Participants’ experiences with standard text messaging for PCR communication are summarized in Table 3. Overall, 65.1% (369/ 567) of respondents reported receiving standard text messages for PCR communication at least once per week when on clinical duty, and 52.9% (300/567) received standard text messages at least once per day.

Overall, 21.5% (122/567) of respondents received standard text messages that included individually identifiable information at least once per day, and 41.3% (234/567) received messages that included some identifiable information (eg, patient initials, room number) at least once per day. About one-fifth of respondents (21.0%, 119/567) indicated receiving standard text messages for urgent clinical issues at least once per day. Receipt of standard text messages for a patient for whom the respondent was no longer providing care, delays in receipt of messages, messages missed because smartphones were set to vibrate, and receipt of messages when not on clinical duty occurred, but less frequently. We found no significant associations between receipt of PCR standard text messages once or more per day and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, or hospital teaching status. A higher percentage of respondents in the South (63.2%, 96/152) and West (57.9%, 70/121) reported receipt of at least 1 PCR standard text message per day, compared with respondents in the Northeast (51.9%, 54/104), Midwest (45.2%, 61/135), and other (25.0%, 4/16) (P = 0.003).

Senders of PCR standard text messages. Of respondents who received standard text messages for PCR communication at least once per week, a majority reported receiving messages from physicians in the same specialty (88.6%, 327/369) and from physicians in other specialties (71.3%, 263/369). A minority of respondents reported receiving messages from nurses (35.0%, 129/369), social workers (30.6%, 113/369), and pharmacists (27.9%, 103/369).

Perceptions among users. Of respondents who received standard text messages for PCR communication at least once per week, an overwhelming majority agreed or strongly agreed that use of standard text messaging allowed them to provide better care (81.7%, 295/361) and made them more efficient (87.3%, 315/361). A majority also agreed or strongly agreed that standard text messaging posed a risk to the privacy and confidentiality of patient information (56.4%, 203/360), and nearly a third indicated that standard text messaging posed a risk to the timely receipt of messages by the correct individual (27.6%, 100/362). Overall, a large majority agreed or strongly agreed that the benefits of using standard text messaging for PCR communication outweighed the risks (85.0%, 306/360).

Adoption of Organization-Approved Secure Mobile Messaging Applications

Participants’ reported adoption of organization-approved secure mobile messaging applications is shown in the Figure. About one-fourth (26.6%, 146/549) of respondents reported that their organization had implemented a secure messaging application and that some clinicians were using it, whereas relatively few (7.3%, 40/549) reported that their organization had implemented an application that was being used by most clinicians. A substantial portion of respondents (21.3%, 117/549) were not sure whether their organization was planning to implement a secure mobile messaging application for PCR communication. We found no significant associations between partial or nearly full implementation of a secure mobile messaging application and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, or practice location. A lower percentage of respondents in major teaching hospitals (28.0%, 67/239) reported partial or nearly full implementation of a secure mobile messaging application, compared with respondents from teaching hospitals (39.6%, 74/187) and nonteaching hospitals (39.2%, 40/102) (P = 0.02).

We found that pagers were the technology most commonly used by hospital-based clinicians, but also that a majority have used standard text messaging for PCR communication, and that relatively few hospitals had fully implemented secure mobile messaging applications. Our findings reveal a wide range of technology use and suggest an evolution to support communication among healthcare professionals.

The persistence of pagers as the technology most commonly provided by hospitals and used by clinicians for communication is noteworthy in that pagers are limited in their capabilities, typically not allowing a response to the message sender or the ability to forward a message, and often not allowing the ability to send messages to multiple recipients. The continued heavy use of pagers may be explained by their relatively low cost, especially compared with investment in new technologies, and reliable receipt of messages, even in areas with no cell phone service or WiFi signal. Furthermore, hospitals’ providing pagers allows for oversight, directory creation, and the potential for integration into other information systems. In 2 recent studies, inpatient paging communication was evaluated in depth. Carlile et al.¹⁰ found that the majority of pages requested a response, requiring an interruption in physician workflow to initiate a callback. Kummerow Broman et al.¹¹ similarly found that a majority of pages requested a callback; they also found a high volume of nonurgent messages. With pager use, a high volume of messages, many of which require a response but are nonurgent, makes for a highly interruptive workflow.

That more than half of our hospital-based clinicians received standard text messages for PCR communication once or more per day is consistent with other, smaller studies. Kuhlmann et al.¹ surveyed 97 pediatric hospitalists and found that a majority sent and received work-related text messages. Prochaska et al.² surveyed 131 residents and found that standard text messaging was the communication method preferred by the majority of residents. Similar to these studies, our study found that receipt of standard text messages that included protected health information was fairly common. However, we identified additional risks related to standard text messaging. One-fifth of our respondents received standard text messages for urgent clinical issues once or more per day, and many respondents reported occasional receipt of messages regarding a patient for whom they were no longer providing care and receipt of messages when not on clinical duty. The usual inability to automate forwarding of standard text messages to another clinician creates the potential for clinically important messages to be delayed or missed. These risks have not been reported in the literature, and we think healthcare systems may not be fully aware of them. Our findings suggest that many clinicians have migrated from pagers to standard text messaging for the enhanced efficiency, and they perceive that the benefit of improved efficiency outweighs the risks to protected health information and the delay in receipt of clinically important messages by the correct individual.

Secure mobile messaging applications seem to address the limitations of both pagers and standard text messaging. Secure mobile messaging applications typically allow message response, message forwarding, multiple recipients, directory creation, the potential to create escalation schemes for nonresponse, and integration with other information systems, including electronic health records. Although several hospitals have developed their own systems,^4,12,13 most hospitals likely will purchase a vendor-based system. We found that a minority of hospitals had implemented a secure messaging application, and even fewer had most of their clinicians using it. Although little research has been conducted on these applications, studies suggest they are well received by users.^4,5 Given that paging communication studies have found a large portion of pages are sent by nurses and other non-physician team members, secure mobile messaging applications should allow for direct message exchange with all professionals caring for a patient.^10,11 Furthermore, hospitals will need to ensure adequate cell phone and WiFi signal strength throughout their facilities to ensure reliable and timely delivery of messages.

Our study had several limitations. We used a large database to conduct a national survey but had a low response rate and some drop-off of responses within surveys. Our sample reflected respondent diversity, and our analyses of demographic characteristics found no significant differences across survey response waves. Unfortunately, we did not have nonrespondents’ characteristics and therefore could not compare them with respondents’. It is possible that nonrespondents may have had different practices related to use of communication technology, especially in light of the fact that the survey was conducted by e-mail. However, given our finding that use of standard text messaging was comparable to that in other studies,^1,2 and given the similarity of respondents’ characteristics across response waves, our findings likely were not affected by nonresponse bias.⁹ Last, we used a survey that had not been validated. However, this survey was created by experts in interprofessional collaboration and information technology, was informed by prior studies, and was iteratively refined during pretesting and pilot testing.

Pagers remain the technology most commonly used by hospital-based clinicians, but a majority also use standard text messaging for PCR communication, and relatively few hospitals have fully implemented secure mobile messaging applications. The wide range of technologies used suggests an evolution of methods to support communication among healthcare professionals. An optimized system will improve communication efficiency while ensuring the security of their patients’ information and the timely receipt of that information by the intended clinician.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the Society of Hospital Medicine and the society staff who helped administer the survey, especially Mr. Ethan Gray.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Communication among healthcare professionals is essential for high-quality patient care. However, communication is difficult in hospitals because of heavy workloads, rapidly evolving plans of care, and geographic dispersion of team members. When hospital-based professionals are not in the same place at the same time, they rely on technology to communicate. Pagers have historically been used to support communication in hospitals, but are limited in their capabilities. Several recent small studies have shown that some physicians have started using standard text messaging on smartphones for patient care–related (PCR) messages.^1-3 Although potentially enhancing clinician efficiency, use of standard text messaging for PCR messages raises concern about security risks related to transmission of protected health information. Addressing these concerns are emerging secure mobile messaging applications designed for PCR communication. Although recent studies suggest these applications are well received by users, the adoption rate is largely unknown.^4,5

We conducted a study to see if there was a shift in use of hospital-based communication technologies under way. We surveyed a national sample of hospital-based clinicians to characterize current use of communication technologies, assess potential risks and perceptions related to use of standard text messaging for PCR messages, and characterize the adoption of secure mobile messaging applications designed for PCR communication.

Study Design

The study was a cross-sectional survey of hospitalists—physicians and advanced practice providers whose primary professional focus is care of hospitalized patients. We studied hospitalists because of their role in coordinating care for complex medical patients and because prior studies identified communication as a major component of their work.^6,7 The Northwestern University Institutional Review Board deemed this study exempt.

Survey Instrument

Four investigators (Drs. O’Leary, Liebovitz, Wu, and Reddy) with expertise in interprofessional communication and information technology created a draft survey based in part on results of prior studies assessing clinicians’ use of smartphones and standard text messaging for PCR communication.^1,3 In the first section of the survey, we asked respondents which technologies were provided by their organization and which technologies they used for PCR communication. In the second section, we asked respondents about their use and perceptions of standard text messaging for PCR communication. In the third section, we asked about implementation and adoption of secure mobile messaging applications at their hospital. In the fourth and final section, we asked for demographic information.

We randomly selected 8 attendees of the 2015 Midwest Hospital Medicine Conference and invited them to participate in a focus group that would review a paper version of the draft survey and recommend revisions. Using the group’s feedback, we revised the ordinal response scale for questions related to standard text messaging and made other minor edits. We then created an Internet-based version of the survey and pilot-tested it with 8 hospitalists from 4 diverse hospitalist groups within the Northwestern Medicine Health System. We made additional minor edits based on pilot-test feedback.

Sampling Strategy

We used the largest hospitalist database maintained by the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM). This database includes information on more than 28,000 individuals, representing SHM members and nonmembers who had participated in organizational events. In addition to clinically active hospitalists, the database includes non-hospitalists and clinically inactive hospitalists. We used this database to try to capture the largest possible number of potentially eligible hospitalists.

Survey Administration

We administered the survey in collaboration with SHM staff. E-mails that included a link to the survey on the Survey Monkey website were sent by SHM staff to individuals within the database. These e-mails were sent through Real Magnet, an e-mail marketing platform⁸ that allowed the SHM staff to determine the number of individuals who received and opened the e-mail and the number who clicked on the survey link. To try to promote participation, we offered respondents the chance to enter a lottery to win one of four $50 gift certificates. The initial e-mail was sent in April 2016, a reminder in May 2016, and a final reminder in July 2016.

Data Analysis

We calculated descriptive statistics of participants’ demographic characteristics. We estimated nonresponse bias by comparing demographic characteristics across waves of respondents using analysis of variance, t tests, and χ² tests. This method is based on the finding that characteristics of late respondents often resemble those of nonrespondents.⁹ We collapsed response categories for communication technologies to simplify interpretation. For example, numeric pagers, alphanumeric pagers, and 2-way pagers were collapsed into a pagers category. We used t tests and χ² tests to assess for associations between receipt of standard text messages for PCR communication and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, practice location, and hospital teaching status. Similarly, we used t tests and χ² tests to explore associations between implementation of secure mobile messaging application and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, practice location, and hospital teaching status. All statistical analyses were performed with Stata Release 11.2 (StataCorp).

Participant Characteristics

Overall, the survey link was sent to 28,870 e-mail addresses. Addresses for which e-mails were undeliverable or for which the e-mail was never opened were excluded, yielding a total of 5,786 eligible respondents in the sample. After rejecting 42 clinically inactive individuals, 70 individuals who responded to only the initial item, and 27 duplicates, a total of 620 participant surveys were included in the final analysis. The adjusted response rate was 11.0%.

As shown in Table 1, mean (SD) respondent age was 42.9 (10.0) years, nearly half of the respondents were female, nearly a third were of nonwhite race, an overwhelming majority were physicians, and workplaces were in a variety of hospital settings. The sample size used to calculate demographic characteristics varied from 538 to 549 because of missing data for these items. We found no significant differences in demographic characteristics of respondents across the 3 survey waves, suggesting a lack of survey response bias (Supplemental Table).

Provision and Use of Communication Technologies for PCR Communication

Pagers were provided to the majority of respondents by their hospitals (79.8%, 495/620). Other devices were provided much less frequently, with 21.0% (130/620) reporting their organization provided a smartphone, 20.2% (125/620) a mobile phone, and 4.4% (27/620) a hands-free communication device. Organizations provided no device to 8.2% (51/620) of respondents and an “other” device to 5.5% (34/620).

An overwhelming majority used multiple technologies to receive PCR communication, with 17.7% (110/620) of respondents indicating use of 2 technologies, 22.7% (141/620) use of 3 technologies, and 49.4% (306/620) use of more than 3 technologies. The distribution of the most common ways respondents received PCR communication is shown in Table 2. Pagers were the most common form of technology, with 49.0% (304/620) indicating this was the primary way they received PCR communication. Being called on a mobile phone provided by the organization was the second most common form of receiving PCR communication (11.0%, 68/620), followed by standard text messaging (9.5%, 59/620) and mobile secure messaging using an application approved by the organization (9.0%, 56/620).

Participants’ Experiences With Standard Text Messaging for PCR Communication

Participants’ experiences with standard text messaging for PCR communication are summarized in Table 3. Overall, 65.1% (369/ 567) of respondents reported receiving standard text messages for PCR communication at least once per week when on clinical duty, and 52.9% (300/567) received standard text messages at least once per day.

Overall, 21.5% (122/567) of respondents received standard text messages that included individually identifiable information at least once per day, and 41.3% (234/567) received messages that included some identifiable information (eg, patient initials, room number) at least once per day. About one-fifth of respondents (21.0%, 119/567) indicated receiving standard text messages for urgent clinical issues at least once per day. Receipt of standard text messages for a patient for whom the respondent was no longer providing care, delays in receipt of messages, messages missed because smartphones were set to vibrate, and receipt of messages when not on clinical duty occurred, but less frequently. We found no significant associations between receipt of PCR standard text messages once or more per day and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, or hospital teaching status. A higher percentage of respondents in the South (63.2%, 96/152) and West (57.9%, 70/121) reported receipt of at least 1 PCR standard text message per day, compared with respondents in the Northeast (51.9%, 54/104), Midwest (45.2%, 61/135), and other (25.0%, 4/16) (P = 0.003).

Senders of PCR standard text messages. Of respondents who received standard text messages for PCR communication at least once per week, a majority reported receiving messages from physicians in the same specialty (88.6%, 327/369) and from physicians in other specialties (71.3%, 263/369). A minority of respondents reported receiving messages from nurses (35.0%, 129/369), social workers (30.6%, 113/369), and pharmacists (27.9%, 103/369).

Perceptions among users. Of respondents who received standard text messages for PCR communication at least once per week, an overwhelming majority agreed or strongly agreed that use of standard text messaging allowed them to provide better care (81.7%, 295/361) and made them more efficient (87.3%, 315/361). A majority also agreed or strongly agreed that standard text messaging posed a risk to the privacy and confidentiality of patient information (56.4%, 203/360), and nearly a third indicated that standard text messaging posed a risk to the timely receipt of messages by the correct individual (27.6%, 100/362). Overall, a large majority agreed or strongly agreed that the benefits of using standard text messaging for PCR communication outweighed the risks (85.0%, 306/360).

Adoption of Organization-Approved Secure Mobile Messaging Applications

Participants’ reported adoption of organization-approved secure mobile messaging applications is shown in the Figure. About one-fourth (26.6%, 146/549) of respondents reported that their organization had implemented a secure messaging application and that some clinicians were using it, whereas relatively few (7.3%, 40/549) reported that their organization had implemented an application that was being used by most clinicians. A substantial portion of respondents (21.3%, 117/549) were not sure whether their organization was planning to implement a secure mobile messaging application for PCR communication. We found no significant associations between partial or nearly full implementation of a secure mobile messaging application and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, or practice location. A lower percentage of respondents in major teaching hospitals (28.0%, 67/239) reported partial or nearly full implementation of a secure mobile messaging application, compared with respondents from teaching hospitals (39.6%, 74/187) and nonteaching hospitals (39.2%, 40/102) (P = 0.02).

We found that pagers were the technology most commonly used by hospital-based clinicians, but also that a majority have used standard text messaging for PCR communication, and that relatively few hospitals had fully implemented secure mobile messaging applications. Our findings reveal a wide range of technology use and suggest an evolution to support communication among healthcare professionals.

The persistence of pagers as the technology most commonly provided by hospitals and used by clinicians for communication is noteworthy in that pagers are limited in their capabilities, typically not allowing a response to the message sender or the ability to forward a message, and often not allowing the ability to send messages to multiple recipients. The continued heavy use of pagers may be explained by their relatively low cost, especially compared with investment in new technologies, and reliable receipt of messages, even in areas with no cell phone service or WiFi signal. Furthermore, hospitals’ providing pagers allows for oversight, directory creation, and the potential for integration into other information systems. In 2 recent studies, inpatient paging communication was evaluated in depth. Carlile et al.¹⁰ found that the majority of pages requested a response, requiring an interruption in physician workflow to initiate a callback. Kummerow Broman et al.¹¹ similarly found that a majority of pages requested a callback; they also found a high volume of nonurgent messages. With pager use, a high volume of messages, many of which require a response but are nonurgent, makes for a highly interruptive workflow.

That more than half of our hospital-based clinicians received standard text messages for PCR communication once or more per day is consistent with other, smaller studies. Kuhlmann et al.¹ surveyed 97 pediatric hospitalists and found that a majority sent and received work-related text messages. Prochaska et al.² surveyed 131 residents and found that standard text messaging was the communication method preferred by the majority of residents. Similar to these studies, our study found that receipt of standard text messages that included protected health information was fairly common. However, we identified additional risks related to standard text messaging. One-fifth of our respondents received standard text messages for urgent clinical issues once or more per day, and many respondents reported occasional receipt of messages regarding a patient for whom they were no longer providing care and receipt of messages when not on clinical duty. The usual inability to automate forwarding of standard text messages to another clinician creates the potential for clinically important messages to be delayed or missed. These risks have not been reported in the literature, and we think healthcare systems may not be fully aware of them. Our findings suggest that many clinicians have migrated from pagers to standard text messaging for the enhanced efficiency, and they perceive that the benefit of improved efficiency outweighs the risks to protected health information and the delay in receipt of clinically important messages by the correct individual.

Secure mobile messaging applications seem to address the limitations of both pagers and standard text messaging. Secure mobile messaging applications typically allow message response, message forwarding, multiple recipients, directory creation, the potential to create escalation schemes for nonresponse, and integration with other information systems, including electronic health records. Although several hospitals have developed their own systems,^4,12,13 most hospitals likely will purchase a vendor-based system. We found that a minority of hospitals had implemented a secure messaging application, and even fewer had most of their clinicians using it. Although little research has been conducted on these applications, studies suggest they are well received by users.^4,5 Given that paging communication studies have found a large portion of pages are sent by nurses and other non-physician team members, secure mobile messaging applications should allow for direct message exchange with all professionals caring for a patient.^10,11 Furthermore, hospitals will need to ensure adequate cell phone and WiFi signal strength throughout their facilities to ensure reliable and timely delivery of messages.

Our study had several limitations. We used a large database to conduct a national survey but had a low response rate and some drop-off of responses within surveys. Our sample reflected respondent diversity, and our analyses of demographic characteristics found no significant differences across survey response waves. Unfortunately, we did not have nonrespondents’ characteristics and therefore could not compare them with respondents’. It is possible that nonrespondents may have had different practices related to use of communication technology, especially in light of the fact that the survey was conducted by e-mail. However, given our finding that use of standard text messaging was comparable to that in other studies,^1,2 and given the similarity of respondents’ characteristics across response waves, our findings likely were not affected by nonresponse bias.⁹ Last, we used a survey that had not been validated. However, this survey was created by experts in interprofessional collaboration and information technology, was informed by prior studies, and was iteratively refined during pretesting and pilot testing.

Pagers remain the technology most commonly used by hospital-based clinicians, but a majority also use standard text messaging for PCR communication, and relatively few hospitals have fully implemented secure mobile messaging applications. The wide range of technologies used suggests an evolution of methods to support communication among healthcare professionals. An optimized system will improve communication efficiency while ensuring the security of their patients’ information and the timely receipt of that information by the intended clinician.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the Society of Hospital Medicine and the society staff who helped administer the survey, especially Mr. Ethan Gray.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Communication among healthcare professionals is essential for high-quality patient care. However, communication is difficult in hospitals because of heavy workloads, rapidly evolving plans of care, and geographic dispersion of team members. When hospital-based professionals are not in the same place at the same time, they rely on technology to communicate. Pagers have historically been used to support communication in hospitals, but are limited in their capabilities. Several recent small studies have shown that some physicians have started using standard text messaging on smartphones for patient care–related (PCR) messages.^1-3 Although potentially enhancing clinician efficiency, use of standard text messaging for PCR messages raises concern about security risks related to transmission of protected health information. Addressing these concerns are emerging secure mobile messaging applications designed for PCR communication. Although recent studies suggest these applications are well received by users, the adoption rate is largely unknown.^4,5

We conducted a study to see if there was a shift in use of hospital-based communication technologies under way. We surveyed a national sample of hospital-based clinicians to characterize current use of communication technologies, assess potential risks and perceptions related to use of standard text messaging for PCR messages, and characterize the adoption of secure mobile messaging applications designed for PCR communication.

Study Design

The study was a cross-sectional survey of hospitalists—physicians and advanced practice providers whose primary professional focus is care of hospitalized patients. We studied hospitalists because of their role in coordinating care for complex medical patients and because prior studies identified communication as a major component of their work.^6,7 The Northwestern University Institutional Review Board deemed this study exempt.

Survey Instrument

Four investigators (Drs. O’Leary, Liebovitz, Wu, and Reddy) with expertise in interprofessional communication and information technology created a draft survey based in part on results of prior studies assessing clinicians’ use of smartphones and standard text messaging for PCR communication.^1,3 In the first section of the survey, we asked respondents which technologies were provided by their organization and which technologies they used for PCR communication. In the second section, we asked respondents about their use and perceptions of standard text messaging for PCR communication. In the third section, we asked about implementation and adoption of secure mobile messaging applications at their hospital. In the fourth and final section, we asked for demographic information.

We randomly selected 8 attendees of the 2015 Midwest Hospital Medicine Conference and invited them to participate in a focus group that would review a paper version of the draft survey and recommend revisions. Using the group’s feedback, we revised the ordinal response scale for questions related to standard text messaging and made other minor edits. We then created an Internet-based version of the survey and pilot-tested it with 8 hospitalists from 4 diverse hospitalist groups within the Northwestern Medicine Health System. We made additional minor edits based on pilot-test feedback.

Sampling Strategy

We used the largest hospitalist database maintained by the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM). This database includes information on more than 28,000 individuals, representing SHM members and nonmembers who had participated in organizational events. In addition to clinically active hospitalists, the database includes non-hospitalists and clinically inactive hospitalists. We used this database to try to capture the largest possible number of potentially eligible hospitalists.

Survey Administration

We administered the survey in collaboration with SHM staff. E-mails that included a link to the survey on the Survey Monkey website were sent by SHM staff to individuals within the database. These e-mails were sent through Real Magnet, an e-mail marketing platform⁸ that allowed the SHM staff to determine the number of individuals who received and opened the e-mail and the number who clicked on the survey link. To try to promote participation, we offered respondents the chance to enter a lottery to win one of four $50 gift certificates. The initial e-mail was sent in April 2016, a reminder in May 2016, and a final reminder in July 2016.

Data Analysis

We calculated descriptive statistics of participants’ demographic characteristics. We estimated nonresponse bias by comparing demographic characteristics across waves of respondents using analysis of variance, t tests, and χ² tests. This method is based on the finding that characteristics of late respondents often resemble those of nonrespondents.⁹ We collapsed response categories for communication technologies to simplify interpretation. For example, numeric pagers, alphanumeric pagers, and 2-way pagers were collapsed into a pagers category. We used t tests and χ² tests to assess for associations between receipt of standard text messages for PCR communication and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, practice location, and hospital teaching status. Similarly, we used t tests and χ² tests to explore associations between implementation of secure mobile messaging application and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, practice location, and hospital teaching status. All statistical analyses were performed with Stata Release 11.2 (StataCorp).

Participant Characteristics

Overall, the survey link was sent to 28,870 e-mail addresses. Addresses for which e-mails were undeliverable or for which the e-mail was never opened were excluded, yielding a total of 5,786 eligible respondents in the sample. After rejecting 42 clinically inactive individuals, 70 individuals who responded to only the initial item, and 27 duplicates, a total of 620 participant surveys were included in the final analysis. The adjusted response rate was 11.0%.

As shown in Table 1, mean (SD) respondent age was 42.9 (10.0) years, nearly half of the respondents were female, nearly a third were of nonwhite race, an overwhelming majority were physicians, and workplaces were in a variety of hospital settings. The sample size used to calculate demographic characteristics varied from 538 to 549 because of missing data for these items. We found no significant differences in demographic characteristics of respondents across the 3 survey waves, suggesting a lack of survey response bias (Supplemental Table).

Provision and Use of Communication Technologies for PCR Communication

Pagers were provided to the majority of respondents by their hospitals (79.8%, 495/620). Other devices were provided much less frequently, with 21.0% (130/620) reporting their organization provided a smartphone, 20.2% (125/620) a mobile phone, and 4.4% (27/620) a hands-free communication device. Organizations provided no device to 8.2% (51/620) of respondents and an “other” device to 5.5% (34/620).

An overwhelming majority used multiple technologies to receive PCR communication, with 17.7% (110/620) of respondents indicating use of 2 technologies, 22.7% (141/620) use of 3 technologies, and 49.4% (306/620) use of more than 3 technologies. The distribution of the most common ways respondents received PCR communication is shown in Table 2. Pagers were the most common form of technology, with 49.0% (304/620) indicating this was the primary way they received PCR communication. Being called on a mobile phone provided by the organization was the second most common form of receiving PCR communication (11.0%, 68/620), followed by standard text messaging (9.5%, 59/620) and mobile secure messaging using an application approved by the organization (9.0%, 56/620).

Participants’ Experiences With Standard Text Messaging for PCR Communication

Participants’ experiences with standard text messaging for PCR communication are summarized in Table 3. Overall, 65.1% (369/ 567) of respondents reported receiving standard text messages for PCR communication at least once per week when on clinical duty, and 52.9% (300/567) received standard text messages at least once per day.

Overall, 21.5% (122/567) of respondents received standard text messages that included individually identifiable information at least once per day, and 41.3% (234/567) received messages that included some identifiable information (eg, patient initials, room number) at least once per day. About one-fifth of respondents (21.0%, 119/567) indicated receiving standard text messages for urgent clinical issues at least once per day. Receipt of standard text messages for a patient for whom the respondent was no longer providing care, delays in receipt of messages, messages missed because smartphones were set to vibrate, and receipt of messages when not on clinical duty occurred, but less frequently. We found no significant associations between receipt of PCR standard text messages once or more per day and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, or hospital teaching status. A higher percentage of respondents in the South (63.2%, 96/152) and West (57.9%, 70/121) reported receipt of at least 1 PCR standard text message per day, compared with respondents in the Northeast (51.9%, 54/104), Midwest (45.2%, 61/135), and other (25.0%, 4/16) (P = 0.003).

Senders of PCR standard text messages. Of respondents who received standard text messages for PCR communication at least once per week, a majority reported receiving messages from physicians in the same specialty (88.6%, 327/369) and from physicians in other specialties (71.3%, 263/369). A minority of respondents reported receiving messages from nurses (35.0%, 129/369), social workers (30.6%, 113/369), and pharmacists (27.9%, 103/369).

Perceptions among users. Of respondents who received standard text messages for PCR communication at least once per week, an overwhelming majority agreed or strongly agreed that use of standard text messaging allowed them to provide better care (81.7%, 295/361) and made them more efficient (87.3%, 315/361). A majority also agreed or strongly agreed that standard text messaging posed a risk to the privacy and confidentiality of patient information (56.4%, 203/360), and nearly a third indicated that standard text messaging posed a risk to the timely receipt of messages by the correct individual (27.6%, 100/362). Overall, a large majority agreed or strongly agreed that the benefits of using standard text messaging for PCR communication outweighed the risks (85.0%, 306/360).

Adoption of Organization-Approved Secure Mobile Messaging Applications

Participants’ reported adoption of organization-approved secure mobile messaging applications is shown in the Figure. About one-fourth (26.6%, 146/549) of respondents reported that their organization had implemented a secure messaging application and that some clinicians were using it, whereas relatively few (7.3%, 40/549) reported that their organization had implemented an application that was being used by most clinicians. A substantial portion of respondents (21.3%, 117/549) were not sure whether their organization was planning to implement a secure mobile messaging application for PCR communication. We found no significant associations between partial or nearly full implementation of a secure mobile messaging application and respondents’ age, sex, race, professional type, hospital size, or practice location. A lower percentage of respondents in major teaching hospitals (28.0%, 67/239) reported partial or nearly full implementation of a secure mobile messaging application, compared with respondents from teaching hospitals (39.6%, 74/187) and nonteaching hospitals (39.2%, 40/102) (P = 0.02).

We found that pagers were the technology most commonly used by hospital-based clinicians, but also that a majority have used standard text messaging for PCR communication, and that relatively few hospitals had fully implemented secure mobile messaging applications. Our findings reveal a wide range of technology use and suggest an evolution to support communication among healthcare professionals.

The persistence of pagers as the technology most commonly provided by hospitals and used by clinicians for communication is noteworthy in that pagers are limited in their capabilities, typically not allowing a response to the message sender or the ability to forward a message, and often not allowing the ability to send messages to multiple recipients. The continued heavy use of pagers may be explained by their relatively low cost, especially compared with investment in new technologies, and reliable receipt of messages, even in areas with no cell phone service or WiFi signal. Furthermore, hospitals’ providing pagers allows for oversight, directory creation, and the potential for integration into other information systems. In 2 recent studies, inpatient paging communication was evaluated in depth. Carlile et al.¹⁰ found that the majority of pages requested a response, requiring an interruption in physician workflow to initiate a callback. Kummerow Broman et al.¹¹ similarly found that a majority of pages requested a callback; they also found a high volume of nonurgent messages. With pager use, a high volume of messages, many of which require a response but are nonurgent, makes for a highly interruptive workflow.

That more than half of our hospital-based clinicians received standard text messages for PCR communication once or more per day is consistent with other, smaller studies. Kuhlmann et al.¹ surveyed 97 pediatric hospitalists and found that a majority sent and received work-related text messages. Prochaska et al.² surveyed 131 residents and found that standard text messaging was the communication method preferred by the majority of residents. Similar to these studies, our study found that receipt of standard text messages that included protected health information was fairly common. However, we identified additional risks related to standard text messaging. One-fifth of our respondents received standard text messages for urgent clinical issues once or more per day, and many respondents reported occasional receipt of messages regarding a patient for whom they were no longer providing care and receipt of messages when not on clinical duty. The usual inability to automate forwarding of standard text messages to another clinician creates the potential for clinically important messages to be delayed or missed. These risks have not been reported in the literature, and we think healthcare systems may not be fully aware of them. Our findings suggest that many clinicians have migrated from pagers to standard text messaging for the enhanced efficiency, and they perceive that the benefit of improved efficiency outweighs the risks to protected health information and the delay in receipt of clinically important messages by the correct individual.

Secure mobile messaging applications seem to address the limitations of both pagers and standard text messaging. Secure mobile messaging applications typically allow message response, message forwarding, multiple recipients, directory creation, the potential to create escalation schemes for nonresponse, and integration with other information systems, including electronic health records. Although several hospitals have developed their own systems,^4,12,13 most hospitals likely will purchase a vendor-based system. We found that a minority of hospitals had implemented a secure messaging application, and even fewer had most of their clinicians using it. Although little research has been conducted on these applications, studies suggest they are well received by users.^4,5 Given that paging communication studies have found a large portion of pages are sent by nurses and other non-physician team members, secure mobile messaging applications should allow for direct message exchange with all professionals caring for a patient.^10,11 Furthermore, hospitals will need to ensure adequate cell phone and WiFi signal strength throughout their facilities to ensure reliable and timely delivery of messages.

Our study had several limitations. We used a large database to conduct a national survey but had a low response rate and some drop-off of responses within surveys. Our sample reflected respondent diversity, and our analyses of demographic characteristics found no significant differences across survey response waves. Unfortunately, we did not have nonrespondents’ characteristics and therefore could not compare them with respondents’. It is possible that nonrespondents may have had different practices related to use of communication technology, especially in light of the fact that the survey was conducted by e-mail. However, given our finding that use of standard text messaging was comparable to that in other studies,^1,2 and given the similarity of respondents’ characteristics across response waves, our findings likely were not affected by nonresponse bias.⁹ Last, we used a survey that had not been validated. However, this survey was created by experts in interprofessional collaboration and information technology, was informed by prior studies, and was iteratively refined during pretesting and pilot testing.

Pagers remain the technology most commonly used by hospital-based clinicians, but a majority also use standard text messaging for PCR communication, and relatively few hospitals have fully implemented secure mobile messaging applications. The wide range of technologies used suggests an evolution of methods to support communication among healthcare professionals. An optimized system will improve communication efficiency while ensuring the security of their patients’ information and the timely receipt of that information by the intended clinician.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the Society of Hospital Medicine and the society staff who helped administer the survey, especially Mr. Ethan Gray.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.