Table 3.

Performance of Hark versus a pager as evaluated by agreement on a 5-point Likert scale with criteria for an information transfer device.

Statement	Hark		Pager		P value
	Median	Range	Median	Range
I do not need to be in a specific location within the hospital to initiate or receive communication through this system	5	1–5	5	1–5	.15
I am able to send or receive sufficient levels of detail through this system	5	1–5	4	1–5	.31
It enhances interprofessional collaboration and efficiency	4	1–5	3	2–5	.01
It results in fewer interruptions	5	2–5	2	1–5	.001
It results in less disturbance from interruptions	4	2–5	2	1–5	.003
It minimizes the time between sending a message and receiving the desired response	4	1–5	3	1–5	.22
It makes it easy to contact colleagues in times of need	4	1–5	3.5	2–5	.37
It discourages transfer of unnecessary information	4	1–5	3	1–5	.07
It is simple to operate	4	2–5	4	2–5	.75
It allows me to both send and receive communication	5	1–5	4	1–5	.003
It allows me to clearly transfer information about tasks and patients	5	1–5	4	1–5	.01
It allows me to easily delegate tasks or patients to colleagues	5	3–5	3	1–5	.001
It allows me to access patient information	4	2–5	2	1–5	.001
It allows me to prioritize messages according to urgency	5	1–5	2.5	1–5	.002
It performs the desired functions reliably, with minimal occurrence of malfunctions	4	2–5	3.5	1–5	.01
It can be stored as evidence that communication occurred	5	1–5	2	1–5	.001
It can allow a third person to differentiate between different senders and receivers	5	1–5	2	1–5	.001
I would be satisfied if this was the primary system used for communication between wards staff and doctors	4	1–5	3.5	1–5	.24