Literature DB >> 25571779

Do you see what I see? Insights from using google glass for disaster telemedicine triage.

Mark X Cicero1, Barbara Walsh2, Yauheni Solad3, Travis Whitfill1, Geno Paesano1, Kristin Kim1, Carl R Baum1, David C Cone4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Disasters are high-stakes, low-frequency events. Telemedicine may offer a useful adjunct for paramedics performing disaster triage. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of telemedicine in disaster triage, and to determine whether telemedicine has an effect on the accuracy of triage or the time needed to perform triage.
METHODS: This is a feasibility study in which an intervention team of two paramedics used the mobile device Google Glass (Google Inc; Mountain View, California USA) to communicate with an off-site physician disaster expert. The paramedic team triaged simulated disaster victims at the triennial drill of a commercial airport. The simulated victims had preassigned expected triage levels. The physician had an audio-video interface with the paramedic team and was able to observe the victims remotely. A control team of two paramedics performed disaster triage in the usual fashion. Both teams used the SMART Triage System (TSG Associates LLP; Halifax, England), which assigns patients into Red, Yellow, Green, and Black triage categories. The paramedics were video recorded, and their time required to triage was logged. It was determined whether the intervention team and the control team varied regarding accuracy of triage. Finally, the amount of time the intervention team needed to triage patients when telemedicine was used was compared to when that team did not use telemedicine.
RESULTS: The two teams triaged the same 20 patients. There was no significant difference between the two groups in overall triage accuracy (85.7% for the intervention group vs 75.9% for the control group; P = .39). Two patients were triaged with telemedicine. For the intervention group, there was a significant difference in time to triage patients with telemedicine versus those without telemedicine (35.5 seconds; 95% CI, 72.5-143.5 vs 18.5 seconds; 95% CI, 13.4-23.6; P = .041).
CONCLUSION: There was no increase in triage accuracy when paramedics evaluating disaster victims used telemedicine, and telemedicine required more time than conventional triage. There are a number of obstacles to available technology that, if overcome, might improve the utility of telemedicine in disaster response.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; OS operating system; triage

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25571779     DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X1400140X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prehosp Disaster Med        ISSN: 1049-023X            Impact factor:   2.040


  13 in total

1.  Wearable technology: using Google Glass as a teaching tool.

Authors:  Hui Min Knight; Parag Ravindra Gajendragadkar; Awais Bokhari
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2015-05-12

2.  Usability and Reliability of Smart Glasses for Secondary Triage During Mass Casualty Incidents.

Authors:  John Broach; Alexander Hart; Matthew Griswold; Jeffrey Lai; Edward W Boyer; Aaron B Skolnik; Peter R Chai
Journal:  Proc Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci       Date:  2018-01-03

3.  Based Real Time Remote Health Monitoring Systems: A Review on Patients Prioritization and Related "Big Data" Using Body Sensors information and Communication Technology.

Authors:  Naser Kalid; A A Zaidan; B B Zaidan; Omar H Salman; M Hashim; H Muzammil
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2017-12-29       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  Emergency Departments' Uptake of Telehealth for Stroke Versus Pediatric Care: Observational Study.

Authors:  Kori S Zachrison; Emily M Hayden; Krislyn M Boggs; Tehnaz P Boyle; Jingya Gao; Margaret E Samuels-Kalow; James P Marcin; Carlos A Camargo
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 7.076

Review 5.  Real-Time Remote Health-Monitoring Systems in a Medical Centre: A Review of the Provision of Healthcare Services-Based Body Sensor Information, Open Challenges and Methodological Aspects.

Authors:  O S Albahri; A A Zaidan; B B Zaidan; M Hashim; A S Albahri; M A Alsalem
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 4.460

6.  Application of Telemedicine System to Prehospital Medical Control.

Authors:  Suck Ju Cho; In Ho Kwon; Jinwoo Jeong
Journal:  Healthc Inform Res       Date:  2015-07-31

7.  Evaluation of Google Glass Technical Limitations on Their Integration in Medical Systems.

Authors:  Antonio Martinez-Millana; Jose-Luis Bayo-Monton; Aroa Lizondo; Carlos Fernandez-Llatas; Vicente Traver
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  Patient Acceptance of Remote Scribing Powered by Google Glass in Outpatient Dermatology: Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Sandra Odenheimer; Deepika Goyal; Veena Goel Jones; Ruth Rosenblum; Lam Ho; Albert S Chan
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Using Google Glass in Nonsurgical Medical Settings: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Bryn Dougherty; Sherif M Badawy
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 4.773

10.  Augmented Reality as a Telemedicine Platform for Remote Procedural Training.

Authors:  Shiyao Wang; Michael Parsons; Jordan Stone-McLean; Peter Rogers; Sarah Boyd; Kristopher Hoover; Oscar Meruvia-Pastor; Minglun Gong; Andrew Smith
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 3.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.