Ebook readers : separating the hype from the reality

Academic libraries have been acquiring ebooks for their collections for a number of years, but the uptake by some users has been curtailed by the limitations of screen reading on a traditional PC or laptop. Ebook readers promise to take us into a new phase of ebook development. Innovations include: wireless connectivity, electronic paper, increased battery life, and customisable displays. The recent rapid take-up of ebook readers in the United States, particularly Amazon’s Kindle, suggests that they may about to gain mass-market acceptance. A bewildering number of ebook readers are being promoted by companies eager to gain market share. In addition, each month seems to bring a new ebook reader or a new model of an existing device. Library administrators are faced with the challenge of separating the hype from the reality and deciding when the time is right to invest in and support these new technologies. The Library at QUT, in particular the QUT Library Ebook Reference Group (ERG) has been closely following developments in ebooks and ebook reader technologies. During mid 2010 QUT Library undertook a trial of a range of ebook readers available to Australian consumers. Each of the ebook readers acquired was evaluated by members of the QUT Library ERG and two student focus groups. Major criteria for evaluation included usability, functionality, accessibility and compatibility with QUT Library’s existing ebook collection. The two student focus groups evaluated the ebook readers mostly according to the criteria of usability and functionality. This paper will discuss these evaluations and outline a recommendation about which type (or types) of ebook readers could be acquired and made available for lending to students.

A customisable dashboard display for environmental performance visualisations

We conducted an exploratory study of a mobile energy monitoring tool: The Dashboard. Our point of departure from prior work was the emphasis of end-user customisation and social sharing. Applying extensive feedback, we deployed the Dashboard in real-world conditions to socially linked research participants for a period of five weeks. Participants were encouraged to devise, construct, place, and view various data feeds. The aim of our study was to test the assumption that participants, having control over their Dashboard configuration, would engage, and remain engaged, with their energy feedback throughout the trial. Our research points to a set of design issues surrounding the adoption and continued use of such tools. A novel finding of our study is the impact of social links between participants and their continued engagement with the Dashboard. Our results also illustrate the emergence of energy-voyeurism, a form of social energy monitoring by peers.

Sharing of clinical data in a maternity setting: How do paper hand-held records and electronic health records compare for completeness?

Background Historically, the paper hand-held record (PHR) has been used for sharing information between hospital clinicians, general practitioners and pregnant women in a maternity shared-care environment. Recently in alignment with a National e-health agenda, an electronic health record (EHR) was introduced at an Australian tertiary maternity service to replace the PHR for collection and transfer of data. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the completeness of clinical data collected in a PHR and an EHR. Methods We undertook a comparative cohort design study to determine differences in completeness between data collected from maternity records in two phases. Phase 1 data were collected from the PHR and Phase 2 data from the EHR. Records were compared for completeness of best practice variables collected The primary outcome was the presence of best practice variables and the secondary outcomes were the differences in individual variables between the records. Results Ninety-four percent of paper medical charts were available in Phase 1 and 100% of records from an obstetric database in Phase 2. No PHR or EHR had a complete dataset of best practice variables. The variables with significant improvement in completeness of data documented in the EHR, compared with the PHR, were urine culture, glucose tolerance test, nuchal screening, morphology scans, folic acid advice, tobacco smoking, illicit drug assessment and domestic violence assessment (p = 0.001). Additionally the documentation of immunisations (pertussis, hepatitis B, varicella, fluvax) were markedly improved in the EHR (p = 0.001). The variables of blood pressure, proteinuria, blood group, antibody, rubella and syphilis status, showed no significant differences in completeness of recording. Conclusion This is the first paper to report on the comparison of clinical data collected on a PHR and EHR in a maternity shared-care setting. The use of an EHR demonstrated significant improvements to the collection of best practice variables. Additionally, the data in an EHR were more available to relevant clinical staff with the appropriate log-in and more easily retrieved than from the PHR. This study contributes to an under-researched area of determining data quality collected in patient records.

Paper and electronic antenatal records: What do women and health care providers tell us about their use?

The antenatal paper hand-held record (PHR) has been used extensively in general practice (GP) shared-care management of pregnant women, but recently the antenatal electronic health record (EHR) was introduced. This study aimed to examine the experiences of women and health care providers who use the PHR and the EHR, and find out the relative role of these records in the integration of care. Purposive homogenous samples of women and health care providers were interviewed as users of the PHR in phase 1 and the EHR in phase 2 of the study. Qualitative data were collected via interview with women and GPs and focus groups held with hospital health care providers. Interviews were coded manually and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Fifteen women participated in phase 1 and 12 in phase 2. Seventeen GPs participated in phase 1 and 15 in phase 2. Five focus groups with hospital health care providers were conducted in each phase. Results were categorised into four themes: 1. Record purpose; 2. Perception of the record; 3. Content of the record, and; 4. Sharing information in the record. Both women and health care providers were familiar with the PHR, but identified that some information was missing or not utilised well, and reported underuse of the EHR. The study identified continued widespread use of the PHR and several issues concerning the use of the EHR. An improvement in the strategic implementation of the EHR is suggested as a mechanism to facilitate its wider adoption.

From maternity paper hand-held records to electronic health records: What do women tell us about their use?

The paper hand-held record (PHR) has been used extensively in general practice (GP) shared care management of pregnant women, and recently, the first Mater Shared Electronic Health Record (MSEHR) was introduced. The aim of this qualitative study was to examine women’s experiences using the records and the contribution of the records to integrate care. At the 36-week antenatal visit in a maternity tertiary centre clinic, women were identified as a user of either the PHR or the MSEHR and organised into Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies respectively. Fifteen women were interviewed in Phase 1 and 12 women in Phase 2. Semi-structured interviews were used for data collection, and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) purpose of the record; (2) perceptions of the record; (3) content of the record, and; (4) sharing the record. Findings indicate that the PHR is a well-liked maternity tool. The findings also indicate there is under-usage of the MSEHR due to health-care providers failing to follow up and discuss the option of using the electronic health record option or if a woman has completed the log-in process. This paper adds to an already favourable body of knowledge about the use of the PHR. It is recommended that continued implementation of the MSEHR be undertaken to facilitate its use.

Response to: Electronic health records and healthcare identifiers : legislation discussion paper

Public submission # 029 to a Australian federal parliamentary committee considering proposed legislative changes to the Commonwealth's Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 and the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act 2012.