Design and Integration of a Texting Tool to Keep Patients' Family Members Updated During Hospitalization: Family Members' Perspectives.

While there is an evolving literature on the benefits of texting and patient-centered technologies, texting initiatives have not focused on family members. We sought to identify patients' family members' perspectives on facilitators and barriers to using 1 digital texting innovation to promote family-centered care during patients' hospitalizations. This qualitative study was conducted at a tertiary care center in Houston, consisting of 7 hospitals (1 academic hospital and 6 community hospitals), involving analyzation of 3137 comments from family members who used the digital texting technology. Thematic analysis methods were used. The data analysis for loved ones' feedback resulted in 4 themes as facilitators: (1) inpatient text messaging keeps loved ones updated and connected (n = 611); (2) inpatient text messaging allows for stronger continuity of communication (n = 69); (3) messaging promotes a sense of staff compassion and service (n = 245); and (4) messaging reduces phone calls (n = 65). The data analysis resulted in 4 themes as barriers to text messaging helpfulness: (1) messages could feel generic (n = 31); (2) inpatient texting was not needed if all loved ones were regularly at bedside (n = 6); (3) messages could have a perceived delay (n = 37); and (4) security features could impact convenience (n = 29). Our findings indicate that family members and loved ones value inpatient text messages, not only for the information the messages provide, but also because the act of writing text messages and preparing loved ones shows inclusiveness, compassion, and family-centered care.

Design and Integration of a Texting Tool to Keep Patients' Family Members Updated During Hospitalization: Clinicians' Perspectives.

An important gap in the literature is how clinicians feel about patient-centered technologies and how clinicians experience patient-centered technologies in their workflows. Our goal was to identify clinician users' perspectives on facilitators (pros) and barriers (cons) to using 1 digital texting innovation to promote family centered care during patients' hospitalizations. This qualitative study was conducted at a tertiary care center in Houston, consisting of 7 hospitals (1 academic hospital and 6 community hospitals), involving analyzation of 3 focus groups of 18 physicians, 5 advanced practice providers, and 10 nurse directors and managers, as well as a content analysis of 156 real-time alerts signaling family dissatisfaction on the nursing unit/floor. Thematic analysis methods were used. We selected these participants by attending their regularly scheduled service-line meetings. Clinician feedback from focus groups resulted in 3 themes as facilitators: (a) texting platforms must be integrated within the electronic medical record; (b) texting reduces outgoing phone calls; (c) texting reduces incoming family phone calls. Clinician feedback resulted in 3 themes as barriers: (a) best practice alerts can be disruptive; (b) real-time alerts can create hopelessness; and (c) scale-up is challenging. The analyzation of facilitators (pros) and barriers (cons) pertains only to the clinician's feedback. We also analyzed real-time alerts signaling family dissatisfaction (defined as "service recovery escalation" throughout this manuscript). The most common selection for the source of family dissatisfaction, as reflected through the real-time alerts was, "I haven't heard from physicians enough," appearing in 52 out of 156 alerts (33%). The second most common selection for the source of dissatisfaction was "perceived inconsistent or incomplete information provided by team members," which was selected in 48 cases (31%). Our findings indicate that clinicians value inpatient texting, not only for its ability to quickly relay updates to multiple family members with 1 click, but also because, when used intentionally and meaningfully, texting decreases family phone calls.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Mobile Health Technologies: Definitions, Methodologies, and Outcomes.

Several recently published studies and consensus statements have demonstrated that there is only modest (and in many cases, low-quality) evidence that mobile health (mHealth) can improve patient clinical outcomes such as the length of stay or reduction of readmissions. There is also uncertainty as to whether mHealth can improve patient-centered outcomes such as patient engagement or patient satisfaction. One principal challenge behind the "effectiveness" research in this field is a lack of common understanding about what it means to be effective in the digital space (ie, what should constitute a relevant outcome and how best to measure it). In this viewpoint, we call for interdisciplinary, conceptual clarity on the definitions, methodologies, and patient-centered outcomes frequently used in mHealth research. To formulate our recommendations, we used a snowballing approach to identify relevant definitions, outcomes, and methodologies related to mHealth. To begin, we drew heavily upon previously published detailed frameworks that enumerate definitions and measurements of engagement. We built upon these frameworks by extracting other relevant measures of patient-centered care, such as patient satisfaction, patient experience, and patient activation. We describe several definitional inconsistencies for key constructs in the mHealth literature. In an effort to achieve clarity, we tease apart several patient-centered care outcomes, and outline methodologies appropriate to measure each of these patient-care outcomes. By creating a common pathway linking definitions with outcomes and methodologies, we provide a possible interdisciplinary approach to evaluating mHealth technologies. With the broader goal of creating an interdisciplinary approach, we also provide several recommendations that we believe can advance mHealth research and implementation.

Assessing the Impact of Patient-Facing Mobile Health Technology on Patient Outcomes: Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growth of and media hype about mobile health (mHealth), there is a paucity of literature supporting the effectiveness of widespread implementation of mHealth technologies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether an innovative mHealth technology system with several overlapping purposes can impact (1) clinical outcomes (ie, readmission rates, revisit rates, and length of stay) and (2) patient-centered care outcomes (ie, patient engagement, patient experience, and patient satisfaction). METHODS: We compared all patients (2059 patients) of participating orthopedic surgeons using mHealth technology with all patients of nonparticipating orthopedic surgeons (2554 patients). The analyses included Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables, and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Logistic regression models were performed on categorical outcomes and a gamma-distributed model for continuous variables. All models were adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: The inpatient readmission rates for the nonparticipating group when compared with the participating group were higher and demonstrated higher odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 106/2636, 4.02% and participating group 54/2048, 2.64%; OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.13; P=.04), 60-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 194/2636, 7.36% and participating group 85/2048, 4.15%; OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.39; P<.001), and 90-day inpatient readmissions (nonparticipating group 261/2636, 9.90% and participating group 115/2048, 5.62%; OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.34; P<.001). The length of stay for the nonparticipating cohort was longer at 1.90 days, whereas the length of stay for the participating cohort was 1.50 days (mean 1.87, SD 2 vs mean 1.50, SD 1.37; P<.001). Patients treated by participating surgeons received and read text messages using mHealth 83% of the time and read emails 84% of the time. Patients responded to 60% of the text messages and 53% of the email surveys. Patients were least responsive to digital monitoring questions when the hospital asked them to do something, and they were most engaged with emails that did not require action, including informational content. A total of 96% (558/580) of patients indicated high satisfaction with using mHealth technology to support their care. Only 0.40% (75/2059) patients opted-out of the mHealth technology program after enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: A novel, multicomponent, pathway-driven, patient-facing mHealth technology can positively impact patient outcomes and patient-reported experiences. These technologies can empower patients to play a more active and meaningful role in improving their outcomes. There is a deep need, however, for a better understanding of the interactions between patients, technology, and health care providers. Future research is needed to (1) help identify, address, and improve technology usability and effectiveness; (2) understand patient and provider attributes that support adoption, uptake, and sustainability; and (3) understand the factors that contribute to barriers of technology adoption and how best to overcome them.