Evaluation of Mobile Health Applications Developed by a Tertiary Hospital as a Tool for Quality Improvement Breakthrough.
10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.299
- Author:
Yura LEE
1
;
Soo Yong SHIN
;
Ji Young KIM
;
Jeong Hun KIM
;
Dong Woo SEO
;
Segyeong JOO
;
Joong Yeol PARK
;
Woo Sung KIM
;
Jae Ho LEE
;
David W BATES
Author Information
1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. rufiji@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Mobile Health;
Telemedicine;
Quality Improvement;
Patient Safety;
Patient-Centered Care
- MeSH:
Chungcheongnam-do;
Delivery of Health Care;
Health Personnel;
Humans;
Institute of Medicine (U.S.);
Korea;
Patient Safety;
Patient-Centered Care;
Quality Improvement*;
Telemedicine*;
Tertiary Care Centers*;
United States
- From:Healthcare Informatics Research
2015;21(4):299-306
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the mobile health applications (apps) developed by a single tertiary hospital in Korea with a particular focus on quality and patient safety. METHODS: Twenty-three mobile health apps developed by Asan Medical Center were selected for analysis after exclusion of the apps without any relationship with healthcare or clinical workflow, the apps for individual usage, and the mobile Web apps. Two clinical informaticians independently evaluated the apps with respect to the six aims for quality improvement suggested by the United States Institute of Medicine. All discrepancies were resolved after discussion by the two reviewers. The six aims observed in the apps were reviewed and compared by target users. RESULTS: Eleven apps targeted patients, the other 12 were designed for healthcare providers. Among the apps for patients, one app also had functions for healthcare providers. 'My cancer diary' and 'My chart in my hand' apps matched all the six aims. Of the six aims, Timeliness was the most frequently observed (20 apps), and Equity was the least observed (6 apps). Timeliness (10/11 vs. 10/12) and Patient safety (10/11 vs. 9/12) were frequently observed in both groups. In the apps for patients, Patient-centeredness (10/11 vs. 2/12) and Equity (6/11 vs. 0/12) were more frequent but Efficiency (5/11 vs. 10/12) was less frequent. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the six aims were observed in the apps, but the extent of coverage varied. Further studies, evaluating the extent to which they improve quality are needed.
