4.5 Article

Use of mobile phones by medical staff at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Barbados: evidence for both benefit and harm

Journal

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
Volume 70, Issue 2, Pages 160-165

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.06.007

Keywords

mobile phones; hospital infection; staff questionnaire

Ask authors/readers for more resources

All members of medical staff, including students, were asked to participate in a self-administered questionnaire concerning patterns of mobile phone use and care. Participants' phones were cultured for microorganisms. Healthcare professionals working in close proximity to sensitive equipment were surveyed concerning adverse events associated with mobile phones. Telephone operators were asked to monitor time elapsed as they attempted to contact medical staff by various methods. Of 266 medical. staff and students at the time of the study, 116 completed questionnaires (response rate = 44%). Almost all (98%) used mobile phones: 67% used their mobile phones for hospital-related matters; 47% reported using their phone while attending patients. Only 3% reported washing their hands after use and 53% reported never cleaning their phone. In total, 101 mobile phones were cultured for micro-organisms; 45% were culture-positive and 15% grew Gram-negative pathogens. The survey of staff working in close proximity to sensitive equipment revealed only one report of minor interference with life-saving equipment. Telephone operators were able to contact medical. staff within 2 min most easily by mobile phone. Mobile phones were used widely by staff and were considered by most participants as a more efficient means of communication. However, microbial contamination is a risk associated with the infrequent cleaning of phones. Hospitals should develop policies to address the hygiene of mobile phones. (C) 2008 The Hospital Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available