Introduction: Smartphones have become universal among the general public since their launch in 2007. Alongside this, the use of smartphones and mobile medical applications (apps) by clinicians has risen exponentially.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to present the current prevalence of smartphone ownership among Cypriot paediatricians and the patterns of their use in everyday clinical practice.

Study design: A standardized telephone survey was conducted by trained interviewers on a random sample of all 225 currently registered and active paediatricians across all districts of Cyprus.

Results: From a total of 78 randomly selected eligible participants, 75 (96%) paediatricians agreed to participate in the study. The majority of physicians reported that they owned a smartphone (n =53, 71%) and the rest (n=22, 29%) used a Symbian phone as their primary device. Of those who owned a smartphone, 40% (n=21) reported using at least one app related to their clinical work. The mean number of applications used by these users was 3.5. The majority (44/53, 83%) responded that they did not use their smartphone as a tool for managing patient appointments, while 9 out of the 53 (17%) responded positively. Over 80% of participants used their smartphone to take or receive a picture or a video from their patients for professional purposes.

Conclusion: This study found a high level of smartphone ownership and usage among medical Cypriot paediatricians, corroborating with previous literature for other specialties in other countries. Despite the benefits they offer, more rigorous validation practices regarding mobile medical apps need to be established to ensure they are used safely and appropriately.

Background: Smartphones have become mainstream, including in the healthcare setting. However, little formal research has been performed to examine mobile medical technology.

Aims: To examine smartphone use and perceptions among medical students and physicians in a statewide medical university.

Methodology: An IRB approved 23-item survey eliciting smartphone use and perceptions was developed by the research team and an e-mail invitation for participation was sent to all medical students, resident and attending physicians in three medical schools.

Results: A total of 544 surveys were submitted; 347 were completed and analyzed. 93.9% of respondents had smartphones, with no significant difference between students and physicians. Of those with the technology, 82.9% stated they have used it at least once in a clinical setting. Respondents perceived fast access to information to be the greatest benefit to mobile medical technology (96.6%), as well as simplified access (75.5%). Greatest perceived barriers to using this technology were uncertainty about available applications (39.4%) and inexperience (23.4%). There was no significant difference between students and physicians with regard to either category. Concerning patient-centered applications, assistance with lifestyle modification (78.8%) and increased adherence to treatment plans (73.8%) were agreed upon as potential benefits. Greatest perceived barriers to recommending this technology were added cost to the patient (52.6%) and concerns about patient self-diagnosis (47.7%), with no significant difference found between students and physicians.

Conclusion: These data demonstrate smartphone usage is prominent in the healthcare setting and indicates strong agreement regarding its benefits and barriers. Implementing smartphone education into medical curricula may be beneficial to healthcare providers.

Background and Aims: The advent of mobile technologies has stimulated an academic shift in medical education from traditional methods to mobile teaching and learning. This study investigated medical students’ current and anticipated iPad usage as well as perceived impact of iPads on their learning and patient care. The ultimate purpose of the inquiry was to improve future implementation processes.

Methods: Twenty-three iPads were loaded with applications including Cerner Citrix Receiver, question banks, review texts, DynaMed, and the iTunes U application that contained clerkship curriculum. Fifty-eight students used the iPads during a Pediatrics rotation and filled out a survey upon completion. Descriptive statistics were generated from quantitative responses while thematic analysis was used to summarize ideas from qualitative responses. An exploratory mixed methods approach was used to integrate qualitative and quantitative findings. T-tests were used to determine differential usage as a function of prior iPad ownership and experience.

Results and Conclusions: Students variably used iPads to access question banks, didactics and review texts, conduct internet searches, and monitor patient information. IPads were most used compared to other electronic and print sources with cited advantages of portability, convenience, instant accessibility, enhancement of professional conduct, and time management. Respondents proposed other areas in which iPads could be used in the rotation. This highlighted the need to expand our iPad initiative to cover other aspects of learning. Given that prior iPad ownership and experience did not determine differences in usage, the observed variability in iPad usage suggests mere diversity of baseline needs.

Background: Auscultation with stethoscopes is essential to the physical exam. However, the stethoscope has not appreciably changed since Leared and Cammann developed the first binaural stethoscopes in the mid 1800s. Technological advances make it possible to use smartphone technology to auscultate patients. The HeartBuds, a listening device that integrates with an iPhone app, achieves this purpose.

The purpose of this study was to compare HeartBuds’ acoustic superiority over the FDA approved class I blue disposable stethoscopes, which are commonly used in practice to reduce hospital infection rates, and demonstrate equivalence to the gold standard FDA class I analog stethoscope, the Littmann Cardiology III, and the FDA class II digital stethoscope, the Littmann Electronic 3200.

Methods: 50 adult patients were auscultated with each of the above-mentioned stethoscopes by two independent examiners. They rated their acoustic quality and completed surveys documenting body sounds heard.

Results: The disposable stethoscope was significantly worse at identifying cardiac murmurs (p < 0.002), and performed poorly when auscultating for carotid bruits (p < 0.058). The HeartBuds stethoscope was equivalent to its more commonly used counterparts, the Littmann Cardiology III and the Littmann Electronic 3200. Examiners also found it to be of comparable acoustic quality to these models.

Conclusion: HeartBuds is a smartphone compatible listening device that was superior in examining cardiovascular sounds to approved FDA Class I disposable stethoscopes, and equivalent to FDA approved class I and class II Littmann stethoscopes. Considering HeartBuds equivalence to more expensive stethoscopes while costing much less, the HeartBuds can potentially reduce infection rates without sacrificing quality.