A cross-sectional study on bacterial contamination on the touchscreens and posterior surfaces of smartphones of emergency department staff.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Cleaning smartphones of healthcare workers (HCWs) is generally recommended; however, most previous studies on bacterial contamination of smartphones assessed touchscreens alone. This study compared the prevalence of bacterial contamination on touchscreens and posterior surfaces of smartphones owned by HCWs. METHOD: A cross-sectional study of smartphones used by HCWs working at an emergency department (ED) at a Japanese tertiary care hospital was conducted. Bacteria on each surface of the smartphones were isolated separately. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the prevalence of microbial contamination on each surface of the smartphones and the types of associated bacterial species. Fisher's exact test was used to compare dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: The smartphones of 40 HCWs working in the ED of a Japanese tertiary care hospital were examined. The touchscreens and posterior surfaces were contaminated in 26 (65.0%) and 36 (90.0%) smartphones, respectively, indicating the posterior surface was more frequently contaminated (p = 0.014). Bacillus species and coagulase-negative staphylococci were most frequently isolated from each surface of the smartphones. CONCLUSIONS: The posterior surface of a smartphone was more significantly contaminated with bacteria than the touchscreen. Both surfaces of smartphones need to be cleaned to prevent bacterial contamination in healthcare environments.

Impact of Attending Physicians' Comments on Residents' Workloads in the Emergency Department: Results from Two J(

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether peppy comments from attending physicians increased the workload of residents working in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted two parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomized trials at the ED in a tertiary care hospital in western Japan. Twenty-five residents who examined either ambulatory (J(^o^)PAN-1 Trial) or transferred patients (J(^o^)PAN-2 Trial) in the ED on weekdays. Participants were randomly assigned to groups that either received a peppy message such as "Hope you have a quiet day!" (intervention group) or did not (control group) from the attending physicians. Both trials were conducted from June 2014 through March 2015. For each trial, residents rated the number of patients examined during and the busyness and difficulty of their shifts on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 169 randomizations (intervention group, 81; control group, 88) were performed for the J(^o^)PAN-1 Trial, and 178 (intervention group, 85; control group, 93) for the J(^o^)PAN-2 Trial. In the J(^o^)PAN-1 trial, no differences were observed in the number of ambulatory patients examined during their shifts (5.5 and 5.7, respectively, p = 0.48), the busyness of their shifts (2.8 vs 2.8; p = 0.58), or the difficulty of their shifts (3.1 vs 3.1, p = 0.94). However, in the J(^o^)PAN-2 trial, although busyness (2.8 vs 2.7; p = 0.40) and difficulty (3.1 vs 3.2; p = 0.75) were similar between groups, the intervention group examined more transferred patients than the control group (4.4 vs 3.9; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Peppy comments from attending physicians had a minimal jinxing effect on the workload of residents working in the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), UMIN000017193 and UMIN000017194.