Skip to main content
. 2009 Sep-Oct;16(5):705–713. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2299

Table 2.

Table 2 Perceptions of Wireless E-Mail Device Usability and Impact (n = 106)

Survey Question Response Favorable Response (Number, %)
Device usefulness increases with use 6 (5, 7) 90 (85%)
Device is easy to use 6 (5, 7) 94 (89%)
Easy to keep track of device 6 (4, 7) 71 (67%)
Device is easy to keep clean 4.5 (4, 6) 59 (56%)
I had sufficient training 5 (4, 6) 53 (50%)
Improved speed of communication 6 6,7 97 (92%)
Improved reliability of communication 6 6,7 97 (92%)
Less effort required to communicate 5 (3, 6) 64 (60%)
Improved access to ICU team 6 (5, 7) 95 (90%)
Improved physician response times to routine issues 6 (5, 7) 91 (86%)
Improved physician response times to critical issues 6 (5, 7) 89 (84%)
I am less likely to delay contacting a physician 6 (4.5, 7) 78 (74%)
Improved nonphysician response times 6 (5, 7) 90 (85%)
Content of messages is useful 6 (5, 7) 93 (88%)
I resorted to overhead paging or numerical paging 1 (1, 3) 82 (77%)
Overall impact of wireless e-mail on communication 6 (6, 7) 94 (89%)
Improved job satisfaction 6 (4, 6) 78 (74%)
Improved my communication skills 6 (5, 6) 86 (81%)
Helped me take better care of my patients 6 (5, 6) 82 (77%)
Has made me more comfortable with using information technology for patient care 5 (4, 6) 65 (61%)
Has made my job less frustrating 6 (4, 6) 79 (75%)
Has a positive effect on team morale 6 (4, 6) 71 (67%)
Has enabled better coordination of ICU team members 6 (5, 7) 93 (88%)
Has enabled new ways of ICU team to work together 6 (5, 6) 80 (75%)
Has enabled greater awareness of ICU activity 6 (4, 6) 78 (74%)
Improved patient care 6 (5, 6) 94 (89%)
Improved patient safety 6 (5, 6) 80 (75%)
Enabled faster care 6 (5, 7) 95 (90%)
I would like to keep using wireless e-mail in the ICU 7 (6, 7) 92 (87%)
All physicians should use wireless e-mail 6 (5, 7) 90 (85%)

Legend: Data are presented as median (interquartile range) on a 7-point Likert scale, with 7 indicating the highest degree of agreement or most favorable response, except for “Resorted to overhead paging or numerical paging”, where 7 indicates frequent use of paging. For each question, we calculated a p value (using the sign test) to test the null hypothesis that the median response equals 4, the neutral value on the Likert scale. All p values for these comparisons were < 0.001. A favorable response is defined as a Likert score of 5, 6 or 7, except for “Resorted to overhead paging or numerical paging” where it is defined as a Likert score of 1, 2, or 3.

ICU = intensive care unit.