BACKGROUND: Video recording of resuscitation from fixed camera locations has been used to assess adherence to guidelines and provide feedback on performance. However, inpatient cardiac arrests often happen in unpredictable locations and crowded rooms, making video recording of these events problematic. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the feasibility of Google Glass (GG) as a method for recording inpatient cardiac arrests and capturing salient resuscitation factors for post-event review. METHODS: This observational study involved recording simulated cardiac arrest events on inpatient medical wards. Each simulation was reviewed by 3 methods: in-room physician direct observation, stationary video camera (SVC), and GG. Nurse and physician specialists analyzed the videos for global visibility and audibility, as well as recording quality of predefined resuscitation events and behaviors. Resident code leaders were surveyed regarding attitudes toward GG use in the clinical emergency setting. RESULTS: Of 11 simulated cardiac arrest events, 9 were successfully recorded by all observation methods (1 GG failure, 1 SVC failure). GG was judged slightly better than SVC recording for average global visualization (3.95 versus 3.15, P = .0003) and average global audibility (4.77 versus 4.42, P = .002). Of the GG videos, 19% had limitations in overall interpretability compared with 35% of SVC recordings (P = .039). All 10 survey respondents agreed that GG was easy to use; however, 2 found it distracting and 3 were uncomfortable with future use during actual resuscitations. CONCLUSIONS: GG is a feasible and acceptable method for capturing simulated resuscitation events in the inpatient setting.
BACKGROUND: Video recording of resuscitation from fixed camera locations has been used to assess adherence to guidelines and provide feedback on performance. However, inpatient cardiac arrests often happen in unpredictable locations and crowded rooms, making video recording of these events problematic. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the feasibility of Google Glass (GG) as a method for recording inpatient cardiac arrests and capturing salient resuscitation factors for post-event review. METHODS: This observational study involved recording simulated cardiac arrest events on inpatient medical wards. Each simulation was reviewed by 3 methods: in-room physician direct observation, stationary video camera (SVC), and GG. Nurse and physician specialists analyzed the videos for global visibility and audibility, as well as recording quality of predefined resuscitation events and behaviors. Resident code leaders were surveyed regarding attitudes toward GG use in the clinical emergency setting. RESULTS: Of 11 simulated cardiac arrest events, 9 were successfully recorded by all observation methods (1 GG failure, 1 SVC failure). GG was judged slightly better than SVC recording for average global visualization (3.95 versus 3.15, P = .0003) and average global audibility (4.77 versus 4.42, P = .002). Of the GG videos, 19% had limitations in overall interpretability compared with 35% of SVC recordings (P = .039). All 10 survey respondents agreed that GG was easy to use; however, 2 found it distracting and 3 were uncomfortable with future use during actual resuscitations. CONCLUSIONS: GG is a feasible and acceptable method for capturing simulated resuscitation events in the inpatient setting.
Authors: Robert W Neumar; Michael Shuster; Clifton W Callaway; Lana M Gent; Dianne L Atkins; Farhan Bhanji; Steven C Brooks; Allan R de Caen; Michael W Donnino; Jose Maria E Ferrer; Monica E Kleinman; Steven L Kronick; Eric J Lavonas; Mark S Link; Mary E Mancini; Laurie J Morrison; Robert E O'Connor; Ricardo A Samson; Steven M Schexnayder; Eunice M Singletary; Elizabeth H Sinz; Andrew H Travers; Myra H Wyckoff; Mary Fran Hazinski Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Peter R Chai; Roger Y Wu; Megan L Ranney; Jayne Bird; Sandy Chai; Brian Zink; Paul S Porter Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: David Drummond; Cécile Arnaud; Romain Guedj; Alexandre Duguet; Nathalie de Suremain; Arnaud Petit Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Raina M Merchant; Lin Yang; Lance B Becker; Robert A Berg; Vinay Nadkarni; Graham Nichol; Brendan G Carr; Nandita Mitra; Steven M Bradley; Benjamin S Abella; Peter W Groeneveld Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Joseph P Ornato; Mary Ann Peberdy; Renee D Reid; V Ramana Feeser; Harinder S Dhindsa Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: C Jessica Dine; Ronna E Gersh; Marion Leary; Barbara J Riegel; Lisa M Bellini; Benjamin S Abella Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Dana P Edelson; Barbara Litzinger; Vineet Arora; Deborah Walsh; Salem Kim; Diane S Lauderdale; Terry L Vanden Hoek; Lance B Becker; Benjamin S Abella Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-05-26
Authors: Effie Singas; Luis D Quintero; Sean Dhar; Adey Tsegaye; Kayla Finuf; Renee Pekmezaris; Maya S Weitzen; Paul H Mayo Journal: ATS Sch Date: 2021-10-29
Authors: David Yamane; Patrick McCarville; Natalie Sullivan; Evan Kuhl; Carolyn Robin Lanam; Christopher Payette; Anahita Rahimi-Saber; Jennifer Rabjohns; Andrew D Sparks; Keith Boniface; Aaran Drake Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2020-10-20