...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care >Comparison of communication tools for recalling doctors in the Emergency Department in Hamad Medical Corporation
【24h】

Comparison of communication tools for recalling doctors in the Emergency Department in Hamad Medical Corporation

机译:哈马德医疗公司急诊科召回医生的通讯工具比较

获取原文

摘要

Background: The conventional landlines and bleeps that are commonly used in recalling physicians during major casualty incident (MCI) have shown multiple defects. Despite the remarkable advancement of handheld devices, social media and short text messaging (SMS), only a few studies on the comparison between the conventional communication and the social media have been found in the literature. This research compares (1) bleeps, (2) SMS and (3) WhatsApp as communication tools for recalling doctors. These tools were selected because they are commonly used in our region. Method: We selected two periods for communications: social-friendly (09:00–19:00) and anti-social (23:00–06:00) periods. A total of 120 emergency physicians from Hamad General Hospital were contacted by the three communication tools in the two selected periods. We investigated the percentage of the responders and the time of response because this is the first step to the MCI response. Results: Bleep had the fastest response (mean 7.6 minutes in the social-friendly period and 9 minutes in the anti-social period), but with a least response of 10.8% and 3.0% for the social-friendly and anti-social periods, respectively. WhatsApp had the majority of responses (45.0% in the social-friendly period and 47.5% in the anti-social period, respectively). However, its response time was long (146 and 141 minutes), respectively. Therefore, it is not suitable for recalling doctors during MCI. In contrast, SMS showed a bizarre response, with a mean response time of 43 and 154 minutes for the social-friendly and anti-social periods, respectively. This showed a marked increase in response from 30.8% for the social-friendly period to 44.2% for the anti-social period. Conclusion: At present, there is not even one satisfactory and reliable communication tool for recalling physicians during MCI. Unsatisfactory response may be due to human factors that can be improved by training to achieve optimal compliance in both percentage and response time. This could in turn help achieve the ultimate response in MCI. More research is needed in this field to obtain the best and most accurate communication tool.
机译:背景:在重大人员伤亡事件(MCI)期间,通常用于召回医生的常规座机和哔哔声已显示出多个缺陷。尽管手持设备,社交媒体和短文本消息传送(SMS)取得了显着进步,但是在文献中仅发现了一些关于传统通讯和社交媒体之间比较的研究。这项研究比较了(1)毛刺,(2)SMS和(3)WhatsApp作为召回医生的沟通工具。选择这些工具是因为它们在我们地区常用。方法:我们选择了两个交流时段:社交时段(09:00-19:00)和反社交时段(23:00-06:00)。在两个选定的时期内,三种通讯工具与哈马德总医院的120名急诊医师进行了联系。我们调查了响应者的百分比和响应时间,因为这是MCI响应的第一步。结果:Bleep的响应速度最快(在社交友好期间平均为7.6分钟,在反社交期间平均为9分钟),但对于社交友好和反社交功能的响应最少,分别为10.8%和3.0%期间。 WhatsApp的回答最多(在社会友好时期为45.0%,在反社会时期分别为47.5%)。但是,其响应时间很长(分别为146分钟和141分钟)。因此,它不适合在MCI期间召回医生。相比之下,SMS显示出奇怪的响应,在社交和反社交时期平均响应时间分别为43分钟和154分钟。结果表明,响应时间从社交友好时期的30.8%显着提高到反社交时期的44.2%。结论:目前,甚至没有一种令人满意的和可靠的沟通工具可以在MCI期间召回医生。不能令人满意的响应可能是由于人为因素造成的,可以通过培训以提高百分比和响应时间的最佳依从性来改善人为因素。反过来,这可能有助于实现MCI的最终响应。为了获得最佳和最准确的通信工具,需要在该领域进行更多研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号