Alzbeta Glancova1, Quan T Do1, Devang K Sanghavi2, Pablo Moreno Franco3, Neethu Gopal4, Lindsey M Lehman5, Yue Dong6, Brian W Pickering1, Vitaly Herasevich7. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States. 2. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, United States. 3. Department of Medicine, Critical Care, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, United States. 4. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, United States. 5. Mayo Clinic, Critical Care IMP, Rochester, Minnesota, United States. 6. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States. 7. Department of Anesthesiology and Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Video recording and video recognition (VR) with computer vision have become widely used in many aspects of modern life. Hospitals have employed VR technology for security purposes, however, despite the growing number of studies showing the feasibility of VR software for physiologic monitoring or detection of patient movement, its use in the intensive care unit (ICU) in real-time is sparse and the perception of this novel technology is unknown. The objective of this study is to understand the attitudes of providers, patients, and patient's families toward using VR in the ICU. DESIGN: A 10-question survey instrument was used and distributed into two groups of participants: clinicians (MDs, advance practice providers, registered nurses), patients and families (adult patients and patients' relatives). Questions were specifically worded and section for free text-comments created to elicit respondents' thoughts and attitudes on potential issues and barriers toward implementation of VR in the ICU. SETTING: The survey was conducted at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and Florida. RESULTS: A total of 233 clinicians' and 50 patients' surveys were collected. Both cohorts favored VR under specific circumstances (e.g., invasive intervention and diagnostic manipulation). Acceptable reasons for VR usage according to clinicians were anticipated positive impact on patient safety (70%), and diagnostic suggestions and decision support (51%). A minority of providers was concerned that artificial intelligence (AI) would replace their job (14%) or erode professional skills (28%). The potential use of VR in lawsuits (81% clinicians) and privacy breaches (59% patients) were major areas of concern. Further identified barriers were lack of trust for AI, deterioration of the patient-clinician rapport. Patients agreed with VR unless it does not reduce nursing care or record sensitive scenarios. CONCLUSION: The survey provides valuable information on the acceptance of VR cameras in the critical care setting including an overview of real concerns and attitudes toward the use of VR technology in the ICU. Thieme. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Video recording and video recognition (VR) with computer vision have become widely used in many aspects of modern life. Hospitals have employed VR technology for security purposes, however, despite the growing number of studies showing the feasibility of VR software for physiologic monitoring or detection of patient movement, its use in the intensive care unit (ICU) in real-time is sparse and the perception of this novel technology is unknown. The objective of this study is to understand the attitudes of providers, patients, and patient's families toward using VR in the ICU. DESIGN: A 10-question survey instrument was used and distributed into two groups of participants: clinicians (MDs, advance practice providers, registered nurses), patients and families (adult patients and patients' relatives). Questions were specifically worded and section for free text-comments created to elicit respondents' thoughts and attitudes on potential issues and barriers toward implementation of VR in the ICU. SETTING: The survey was conducted at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and Florida. RESULTS: A total of 233 clinicians' and 50 patients' surveys were collected. Both cohorts favored VR under specific circumstances (e.g., invasive intervention and diagnostic manipulation). Acceptable reasons for VR usage according to clinicians were anticipated positive impact on patient safety (70%), and diagnostic suggestions and decision support (51%). A minority of providers was concerned that artificial intelligence (AI) would replace their job (14%) or erode professional skills (28%). The potential use of VR in lawsuits (81% clinicians) and privacy breaches (59% patients) were major areas of concern. Further identified barriers were lack of trust for AI, deterioration of the patient-clinician rapport. Patients agreed with VR unless it does not reduce nursing care or record sensitive scenarios. CONCLUSION: The survey provides valuable information on the acceptance of VR cameras in the critical care setting including an overview of real concerns and attitudes toward the use of VR technology in the ICU. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Patrick Lucey; Jeffrey F Cohn; Iain Matthews; Simon Lucey; Sridha Sridharan; Jessica Howlett; Kenneth M Prkachin Journal: IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern Date: 2010-11-22
Authors: Karan Sikka; Alex A Ahmed; Damaris Diaz; Matthew S Goodwin; Kenneth D Craig; Marian S Bartlett; Jeannie S Huang Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Maria Alcocer Alkureishi; Wei Wei Lee; Maureen Lyons; Valerie G Press; Sara Imam; Akua Nkansah-Amankra; Deb Werner; Vineet M Arora Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 5.128