Evaluation of Mobile Health Applications Developed by a Tertiary Hospital as a Tool for Quality Improvement Breakthrough

• Published in: Healthcare informatics research Vol. 21; no. 4; pp. 299 - 306
• Main Authors: Lee, Yura, Shin, Soo-Yong, Kim, Ji-Young, Kim, Jeong Hun, Seo, Dong-Woo, Joo, Segyeong, Park, Joong-Yeol, Kim, Woo Sung, Lee, Jae-Ho, Bates, David W.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) Korean Society of Medical Informatics 01.10.2015; The Korean Society of Medical Informatics; 대한의료정보학회
• Subjects: mobile health; Original; patient safety; patient-centered care; quality improvement; telemedicine; 예방의학; Mobile Health; Quality Improvement; Telemedicine; Patient-Centered Care; Patient Safety
• ISSN: 2093-3681; 2093-369X
• DOI: 10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.299

To evaluate the mobile health applications (apps) developed by a single tertiary hospital in Korea with a particular focus on quality and patient safety. 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. 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. 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.