Clinical Communication Platforms: Useful in Theory

The constant progression of technology has made communication with one another instantaneous through several different channels, at any time of the day, from anywhere in the world. The rate of information, communication, and inundation, moves at the speed of light, except in the realm of healthcare. Clinical communication and collaboration platforms still lag woefully behind its industry counterparts in terms of convenience, ease, efficiency, and reliability. The adage of useful in theory, poor in execution leads to a monumental roadblock for consistent institution wide usage of a single platform.

Healthcare providers across multiple disciplines desire a communication platform that makes streamlining communication effective and easy while keeping patient care priority. The problem is there seems to be multiple platforms that excel in some of the single points mentioned, but not a single platform that delivers across all the marks.

Convenience plays a big part in a successful platform. Most organizations have a strict policy on which disciplines can have the platform app on their personal cell phones and which cannot. That results in the organization providing often clunky, inefficient cell phone devices that house the app for usage amongst many users. The downfall of that is having to lug around an extra cell phone device in tow with other multiple electronic devices that are used daily. They often have a short battery life, spotty service at best, and delayed messaging and delivery dependent on network coverage in that area. This is a deterrent, especially for multiple device users, who are continuously transporting mobile offices throughout the day.

The ease in how a platform can be accessed as well as navigated is a large deciding factor on how many people will choose to use the platform. The navigation and search options for most of these platforms are often confusing and clumsy. If the navigation and search properties for finding individuals you wish to communicate with is painstaking, chances are they will opt to use the ease of another device.

Reliability takes the cake in the world of clinical communication platforms. Healthcare providers want to be assured that the messages being sent and received regarding the care of patient populations are happening real time. The hit or miss reliability of these platforms are inconsistent. Those inconsistencies often lead to an email or phone call of “did you get my message” which often results in the message was not received at all or there was a significant delay. The reliability factor is a key factor for communication platforms. It is not in the best interest of patient care to have to question reliability in communication.

Once you start compiling the list of the possible barriers and challenges to clinical communication and collaboration platforms, the default becomes to rely on seemingly outdated but reliable ways of communicating. Encrypted emails, face-to-face conversations, and phone calls begin to take precedence over the risk associated with using these useful in theory communication platforms. It then becomes the cyclic return of multiple users using various forms of communication and defeats the purpose and goal of instituting one cohesive platform throughout an organization. Until a platform comes along that delivers on execution and consistency, healthcare systems will continue to utilize preferred forms of reliable communication versus the assumed risk of a platform that may compromise patient outcomes.