Amelia K Adcock1, Heidi Kosiorek2, Prachi Parikh3, Alyssa Chauncey4, Qing Wu5, Bart M Demaerschalk1,6. 1. 1 Divisions of Cerebrovascular Diseases and Neurocritical Care, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Phoenix, Arizona. 2. 2 Department of Research, Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic , Phoenix, Arizona. 3. 3 Department of Neurology, Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland, Ohio. 4. 4 Arizona State University , Tempe, Arizona. 5. 5 Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada , Las Vegas, Nevada. 6. 6 Center for Connected Care , Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Telemedicine is increasingly utilized in the evaluation of critically ill patients, including those with decreased level of consciousness (LOC) or coma. Improving access to providers with neurologic expertise affords earlier triage and directed patient management. However, objective data regarding the reliability of using standardized coma scales, traditionally employed at the bedside for remote assessment, are largely lacking. HYPOTHESIS: Bedside and remote assessments of patients with decreased LOC, using either the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) or Full scale Of UnResponsiveness (FOUR), score are equivalent. METHODS: Prospective trial comparing the reliability of bedside and remote coma assessments using GCS or FOUR score clinical evaluation tools utilizing robotic telepresence technology. Total scores of the GCS and FOUR score were compared between bedside and remote physician assessors by paired t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). RESULTS: One hundred subjects were enrolled. Mean age was 70.8 (±15.9) years and the average examination time took 5.16 (±2.04) minutes. Mean GCS total score at bedside was 7.5 (±3.67) versus examination conducted remotely 7.23 (±3.85); difference in scores was 0.25 (±0.10); p = 0.01. Mean FOUR total score at bedside was 9.63 (±4.76) versus remote 9.21 (±4.74); difference in scores was 0.40 (±2.00); p = 0.05. PCC for GCS was 0.966; p < 0.001, and for FOUR score 0.912; p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent of remote providers rated GCS and 89% rated FOUR score as good (4/5) regarding overall satisfaction and ease of use. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between total bedside and remote GCS and FOUR scores were small. Furthermore, PCCs between remote and bedside assessments were excellent: 0.97 (GCS) and 0.91 (FOUR). These results suggest that LOC can be reliably assessed using existing robotic telemedicine technology. Telemedicine could be adopted to help evaluate critically ill patients in neurologically underserved areas.
PURPOSE: Telemedicine is increasingly utilized in the evaluation of critically illpatients, including those with decreased level of consciousness (LOC) or coma. Improving access to providers with neurologic expertise affords earlier triage and directed patient management. However, objective data regarding the reliability of using standardized coma scales, traditionally employed at the bedside for remote assessment, are largely lacking. HYPOTHESIS: Bedside and remote assessments of patients with decreased LOC, using either the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) or Full scale Of UnResponsiveness (FOUR), score are equivalent. METHODS: Prospective trial comparing the reliability of bedside and remote coma assessments using GCS or FOUR score clinical evaluation tools utilizing robotic telepresence technology. Total scores of the GCS and FOUR score were compared between bedside and remote physician assessors by paired t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). RESULTS: One hundred subjects were enrolled. Mean age was 70.8 (±15.9) years and the average examination time took 5.16 (±2.04) minutes. Mean GCS total score at bedside was 7.5 (±3.67) versus examination conducted remotely 7.23 (±3.85); difference in scores was 0.25 (±0.10); p = 0.01. Mean FOUR total score at bedside was 9.63 (±4.76) versus remote 9.21 (±4.74); difference in scores was 0.40 (±2.00); p = 0.05. PCC for GCS was 0.966; p < 0.001, and for FOUR score 0.912; p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent of remote providers rated GCS and 89% rated FOUR score as good (4/5) regarding overall satisfaction and ease of use. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between total bedside and remote GCS and FOUR scores were small. Furthermore, PCCs between remote and bedside assessments were excellent: 0.97 (GCS) and 0.91 (FOUR). These results suggest that LOC can be reliably assessed using existing robotic telemedicine technology. Telemedicine could be adopted to help evaluate critically illpatients in neurologically underserved areas.
Entities:
Keywords:
FOUR Score; Glasgow Coma Scale; coma; critical care; intensive care units; neurology; remote consultation; telemedicine
Authors: Latha G Stead; Eelco F M Wijdicks; Anjali Bhagra; Rahul Kashyap; M Fernanda Bellolio; David L Nash; Sailaja Enduri; Raquel Schears; Bamlet William Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2008-09-20 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Eelco F M Wijdicks; William R Bamlet; Boby V Maramattom; Edward M Manno; Robyn L McClelland Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Lawrence R Wechsler; Jack W Tsao; Steven R Levine; Rebecca J Swain-Eng; Robert J Adams; Bart M Demaerschalk; David C Hess; Elena Moro; Lee H Schwamm; Steve Steffensen; Barney J Stern; Steven J Zuckerman; Pratik Bhattacharya; Larry E Davis; Ilana R Yurkiewicz; Aimee L Alphonso Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Joseph M Darby; Lori A Shutter; Jonathan Elmer; Mohammad Hirzallah; Namir Khandker; Bradley J Molyneaux; A Murat Kaynar; Karen R Nigra; Lawrence R Wechsler Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2021-02