Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Making surgery safer in an increasingly digital world: the internet—friend or foe?

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The internet has resulted in huge efficiency gains in health care, the ability to deal with massive data accumulation and better manage patient data. However, potential and real pitfalls exist, including breeches in security of data and patient confidentiality, data storage issues, errors, and user interface issues.

Methods

A MEDLINE review was performed using MeSH terms “health care” and “information technology.” Cross-referencing was used to explore the different opportunities and challenges the internet has to offer.

Results

As health professionals, we are fast adopting technologies at our fingertips, such as WhatsApp and video capabilities, into our clinical practice to increase productivity and improve patient care. However, the potential security breaches are significant for the health professional and health service. Further, electronic medical records have theoretical advantages to improve patient care, reduce medication errors, and expedite referrals. The downside is a less personalized approach to patient care, as well as the potential for these systems to be even more cumbersome. In regard to the acquisition of knowledge, there is no doubt the internet is our friend. Health care professionals as well as patients have unlimited resources for learning, including podcasts videos, apps, simulators, and wearable devices. Unfortunately, this comes with a risk of misinformation and poorly referenced data with little to no regulation of content.

Conclusion

In this increasing digital world, it is our task as health care providers to embrace these new technologies but develop guidelines and control systems to minimize the pitfalls.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ‘How Electronic Medical Records Reduce Costs and Improve Patient Outcomes’ 2010 Memorial Care [Internet]. https://www.memorialcare.org/about/pressroom/media/how-electronic-medical-records-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-outcomes-2010. Cited 9 Mar 2019

  2. Downing NL, Bates DW, Longhurst CA (2018) Physician burnout in the electronic health record era: are we ignoring the real cause? Ann Intern Med 169(1):50–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kroth J, Morioka-Douglas N, Veres S et al (2019) Association of Electronic Health Record design and use factors with clinician stress and burnout. JAMA Netw Open 2(8):e199609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Sullivan DM, O’Sullivan E, O’Connor M et al (2017) WhatsApp doc? BMJ Innov 3:238–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nikolic A, Wickramasinghe N, Claydon-Platt D et al (2018) The use of communication apps by medical staff in the Australian Health Care System: survey study on prevalence and use. JMIR Med Inform 6(1):e9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sener TE, Buttice S, Sahin B et al (2018) WhatsApp use in the evaluation of hematuria. Int J Med Inform 111:17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stahl I, Dreyfuss D, Ofir D et al (2016) Reliability of smartphone-based teleradiology for evaluating thoracolumbar spine fractures. Spine J 17(2):161–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Borgmann H, Cooperberg M, Murphy D et al (2018) Online professionalism—2018 update of European Association of Urology (atUroweb) recommendations on the appropriate use of social media. Eur Urol 74:644–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jayakumar N, Brunckhorst O, Dasgupta P et al (2015) e-Learning in surgical education: a systematic review. J Surg Educ 72(6):1145–1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rapp A, Healy M, Charlton M et al (2017) Youtube is the most frequently used educational video source for surgical preparation. J Surg Educ 73(6):1072–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rodriguez A, Young M, Jackson H et al (2018) Viewer discretion advised: is Youtube a friend or foe in surgical education? Surg Endosc 32:1724–1728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Larouche M, Geoffrion R, Lazare D et al (2016) Mid-urethral slings on Youtube: quality information on the internet? Int Urogynecol J 27:903–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferhatoglu M, Kartal A, Filiz A et al (2019) Comparison of new era’s education platforms, Youtube and Websurg, in sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-04008-x(epub ahead of print)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Isaac T, Zheng J, Jha A (2012) Use of UpToDate and outcomes in US hospitals. J Hosp Med 7(2):85–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sarbaz M, Kimiafar K, Banaye Yazdipour A (2017) Physicians' use of online clinical evidence in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Iran Stud Health Technol Inform 236:343–347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V et al (2013) Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other web services. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64841

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pereira-Azevedo N, Carrasquinho E, Cardosos de Oliveira E et al (2015) mHealth in urology: a review of experts' involvement in app development. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0125547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Walsh K (2016) Social media and surgery: an alternative view. Surgery 159(3):978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dameff C, Clay B, Longhurst C (2019) Personal health records: more promising in the smartphone era? JAMA 321(4):339–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rexhepi H, Ahlfeldt RM, Cajander A et al (2018) Cancer patients’ attitudes and experiences of online access to their electronic medical records: a qualitative study. Health Inform J 24(2):115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang P, Lee T (2009) Your doctor’s office or the internet? Two paths to personal health records. N Engl J Med 360(13):1276–1278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawrentschuk L, Sasges D, Tasevski R et al (2012) Oncology health information quality on the internet: a multilingual evaluation. Ann Surg Oncol 19:706–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chang DTS, Abouassaly R, Lawrentschuk N (2018) Quality of health information on the internet for prostate cancer. Adv Urol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6705152

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Janssen S, Fahlbusch F, Käsmann L et al (2019) Radiotherapy for prostate cancer: DISCERN quality assessment of patient-oriented websites in 2018. BMC Urol 19(1):42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gul M, Diri MA (2019) Youtube as a source of information about premature ejaculation treatment. J Sex Med 16(11):1734–1740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Daraz L, Morrow A, Ponce O et al (2019) Can patients trust online health information? A meta-narrative systematic review addressing the quality of health information on the internet. J Gen Intern Med 34(9):1884–1891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC et al (2014) Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA 311(7):734–735

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Widmer J, Maurer M, Nayar V et al (2018) Online physician reviews do not reflect patient satisfaction survey responses. Mayo Clin Proc 93(4):453–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Daskivich T, Houman J, Fuller G et al (2018) Online physician ratings fail to predict actual performance on measures of quality, value, and peer review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 25(4):401–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Stranne J, Axen E, Franck-Lissbrant I et al (2019) Single institution followed by national implementation of systematic surgical quality and feedback for radical prostatectomy—a 20-year journey. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02887-4(epub ahead of print)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, AZ Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium

    H. Van Puyvelde & S. Van Bruwaene

  2. Department of Urology, Eastern Health, Box Hill, VIC, Australia

    M. Basto

  3. Department of Urology, Royal North Shore Hospital, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    A. S. J. Chung

  4. Department of Urology, Macquarie University Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    A. S. J. Chung

  5. Department of Urology, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    A. S. J. Chung

Authors
  1. H. Van Puyvelde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Basto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. S. J. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Van Bruwaene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. S. J. Chung.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Puyvelde, H., Basto, M., Chung, A.S.J. et al. Making surgery safer in an increasingly digital world: the internet—friend or foe?. World J Urol 38, 1391–1395 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03145-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03145-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation