Use of social media by Western European hospitals: longitudinal study.

Contains fulltext : 110124.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Patients increasingly use social media to communicate. Their stories could support quality improvements in participatory health care and could support patient-centered care. Active use of social media by health care institutions could also speed up communication and information provision to patients and their families, thus increasing quality even more. Hospitals seem to be becoming aware of the benefits social media could offer. Data from the United States show that hospitals increasingly use social media, but it is unknown whether and how Western European hospitals use social media. OBJECTIVE: To identify to what extent Western European hospitals use social media. METHODS: In this longitudinal study, we explored the use of social media by hospitals in 12 Western European countries through an Internet search. We collected data for each country during the following three time periods: April to August 2009, August to December 2010, and April to July 2011. RESULTS: We included 873 hospitals from 12 Western European countries, of which 732 were general hospitals and 141 were university hospitals. The number of included hospitals per country ranged from 6 in Luxembourg to 347 in Germany. We found hospitals using social media in all countries. The use of social media increased significantly over time, especially for YouTube (n = 19, 2% to n = 172, 19.7%), LinkedIn (n =179, 20.5% to n = 278, 31.8%), and Facebook (n = 85, 10% to n = 585, 67.0%). Differences in social media usage between the included countries were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Social media awareness in Western European hospitals is growing, as well as its use. Social media usage differs significantly between countries. Except for the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the group of hospitals that is using social media remains small. Usage of LinkedIn for recruitment shows the awareness of the potential of social media. Future research is needed to investigate how social media lead to improved health care

Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: a systematic review.

Contains fulltext : 88185.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: During the last decade, the Internet has become increasingly popular and is now an important part of our daily life. When new "Web 2.0" technologies are used in health care, the terms "Health 2.0" or "Medicine 2.0" may be used. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to identify unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and recurrent topics within the definitions. METHODS: A systematic literature review of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL) and gray literature on the Internet using the search engines Google, Bing, and Yahoo was performed to find unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. We assessed all literature, extracted unique definitions, and selected recurrent topics by using the constant comparison method. RESULTS: We found a total of 1937 articles, 533 in scientific databases and 1404 in the gray literature. We selected 46 unique definitions for further analysis and identified 7 main topics. CONCLUSIONS: Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 are still developing areas. Many articles concerning this subject were found, primarily on the Internet. However, there is still no general consensus regarding the definition of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. We hope that this study will contribute to building the concept of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and facilitate discussion and further research

A smart all-in-one device to measure vital signs in admitted patients.

Vital sign measurements in hospitalized patients by nurses are time consuming and prone to operational errors. The Checkme, a smart all-in-one device capable of measuring vital signs, could improve daily patient monitoring by reducing measurement time, inter-observer variability, and incorrect inputs in the Electronic Health Record (EHR). We evaluated the accuracy of self measurements by patient using the Checkme in comparison with gold standard and nurse measurements.This prospective comparative study was conducted at the Internal Medicine ward of an academic hospital in the Netherlands. Fifty non-critically ill patients were enrolled in the study. Time-related measurement sessions were conducted on consecutive patients in a randomized order: vital sign measurement in duplicate by a well-trained investigator (gold standard), a Checkme measurement by the patient, and a routine vital sign measurement by a nurse. In 41 patients (82%), initial calibration of the Checkme was successful and results were eligible for analysis. In total, 69 sessions were conducted for these 41 patients. The temperature results recorded by the patient with the Checkme differed significantly from the gold standard core temperature measurements (mean difference 0.1 ± 0.3). Obtained differences in vital signs and calculated Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) were small and were in range with predefined accepted discrepancies.Patient-calculated MEWS using the Checkme, nurse measurements, and gold standard measurements all correlated well, and the small differences observed between modalities would not have affected clinical decision making. Using the Checkme, patients in a general medical ward setting are able to measure their own vital signs easily and accurately by themselves. This could be time saving for nurses and prevent errors due to manually entering data in the EHR

Bland-Altman plots of Checkme and gold standard results.

<p>Bland-Altman plots of Checkme and gold standard results.</p

Bland-Altman plots of nurse and gold standard results.

<p>Bland-Altman plots of nurse and gold standard results.</p

Demographics of study population and results of calibration procedure.

<p>Demographics of study population and results of calibration procedure.</p

Mean values and differences for vital signs measured by gold standard, nurse and Checkme.

<p>Mean values and differences for vital signs measured by gold standard, nurse and Checkme.</p