The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Smartphones let surgeons know WhatsApp: an analysis of communication in emergency surgical teams
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND Outdated communication technologies in healthcare can place patient safety at risk. This study aimed to evaluate implementation of the WhatsApp messaging service within emergency surgical teams. METHODS A prospective mixed-methods study was conducted in a London hospital. All emergency surgery team members (n = 40) used WhatsApp for communication for 19 weeks. The initiator and receiver of communication were compared for response times and communication types. Safety events were reported using direct quotations. RESULTS More than 1,100 hours of communication pertaining to 636 patients were recorded, generating 1,495 communication events. The attending initiated the most instruction-giving communication, whereas interns asked the most clinical questions (P < .001). The resident was the speediest responder to communication compared to the intern and attending (P < .001). The participants felt that WhatsApp helped flatten the hierarchy within the team. CONCLUSIONS WhatsApp represents a safe, efficient communication technology. This study lays the foundations for quality improvement innovations delivered over smartphones.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Communication Failures: An Insidious Contributor to Medical Mishaps
Sutcliffe, K. M., Lewton, E., & Rosenthal, M. M. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200402000-00019 · Cited by 1,069
Analysis of the Security and Privacy Requirements of Cloud-Based Electronic Health Records Systems
JPC Rodrigues, J., de la Torre, I., Fernández, G., & López-Coronado, M. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2494 · Cited by 209
Issues in mHealth: Findings From Key Informant Interviews
Whittaker, R. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1989 · Cited by 173
Postoperative Handover: Problems, Pitfalls, and Prevention of Error
Nagpal, K., Arora, S., Abboudi, M., Vats, A., Wong, H. W., Manchanda, C., Vincent, C., & Moorthy, K. (2010) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3181dc3656 · Cited by 147
Self-citation
Cited by
Social media and health care, part I: literature review of social media use by health care providers
Farsi, D. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/23205 · Cited by 299
Use of Social Network Sites for Communication Among Health Professionals: Systematic Review
Chan, W. S., & Leung, A. Y. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8382 · Cited by 206
Understanding antibiotic decision making in surgery—a qualitative analysis
Charani, E., Tarrant, C., Moorthy, K., Sevdalis, N., Brennan, L., & Holmes, A. H. (2017) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2017.03.013 · Cited by 101
Self-citationPereira, A. A. C., Destro, J. R., Picinin Bernuci, M., Garcia, L. F., & Rodrigues Lucena, T. F. (2020) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/17430 · Cited by 65
Harkin, L. J., & Kuss, D. (2021) · Psychology of Popular Media · doi:10.1037/ppm0000278 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnston, M. J., King, D., Arora, S., Behar, N., Athanasiou, T., Sevdalis, N., & Darzi, A.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 209
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-51
- ISSN
- 0002-9610 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2110659942
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 42.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
