JMIR Publications

Background:

With the emergence of mobile devices, mobile electronic health record (mEHR) systems have been utilized by health care professionals (HCPs), including doctors, nurses, and other practitioners, to improve efficiency at the point of care. Although several studies on mEHR systems were conducted, including those analyzing their effects and HCPs’ usage frequency, only a few considered the specific workflows of doctors based on their specialties in which the work process differs greatly.

Objective:

This study aimed to investigate the differences in mEHR usage paths across clinical specialties.

Methods:

We collected the log data of 974 doctors who worked from August 2016 to August 2017 and used the mEHR system at the Samsung Medical Center, one of the biggest hospitals in South Korea. The doctors were classified into 3 groups based on their specialty: the physician, the surgeon, and other hospital-based physician (OHBP) groups. We used various descriptive and visualization methods to understand and compare doctors’ usage paths of mEHRs. First, the average numbers of log-ins per day and features used per log-in were examined over different specialties and positions. Second, the number of features used by each doctor was visualized via a heat map to provide an overview of mEHR usage across feature types and doctors’ specialties. Third, we conducted a path analysis via a Sankey diagram to describe main usage paths and association rule mining to find frequent paths in mEHR usage.

Results:

The physician group logged on most frequently, whereas the OHBP group logged on least frequently. In fact, the number of log-ins per day of residents in the physician group was 4.4 times higher than that of staff members in the other groups. The heat map visualization showed a visible difference among specialty groups. The physician group used more consultation-related features, whereas the surgeon group used more surgery-related features. Generally, 50% of the doctors spent about 15 seconds at a time when using mEHRs. In the Sankey diagram, the physician group showed diverse usage patterns with higher complexity compared with the other 2 groups; in particular, their paths contained more loops, which reflected repetitive checks on multiple patients. The most frequent path included inpatient summary, which means that most users stopped at the point of summary and did not proceed to view more details.

Conclusions:

The usage paths of mEHRs showed considerable differences among the specialty groups. Such differences can be accommodated into an mEHR design to enhance the efficiency of care.