Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Teletoxicology: Patient Assessment Using Wearable Audiovisual Streaming Technology

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Audiovisual streaming technologies allow detailed remote patient assessment and have been suggested to change management and enhance triage. The advent of wearable, head-mounted devices (HMDs) permits advanced teletoxicology at a relatively low cost. A previously published pilot study supports the feasibility of using the HMD Google Glass® (Google Inc.; Mountain View, CA) for teletoxicology consultation. This study examines the reliability, accuracy, and precision of the poisoned patient assessment when performed remotely via Google Glass®.

Methods

A prospective observational cohort study was performed on 50 patients admitted to a tertiary care center inpatient toxicology service. Toxicology fellows wore Google Glass® and transmitted secure, real-time video and audio of the initial physical examination to a remote investigator not involved in the subject’s care. High-resolution still photos of electrocardiograms (ECGs) were transmitted to the remote investigator. On-site and remote investigators recorded physical examination findings and ECG interpretation. Both investigators completed a brief survey about the acceptability and reliability of the streaming technology for each encounter. Kappa scores and simple agreement were calculated for each examination finding and electrocardiogram parameter. Reliability scores and reliability difference were calculated and compared for each encounter.

Results

Data were available for analysis of 17 categories of examination and ECG findings. Simple agreement between on-site and remote investigators ranged from 68 to 100 % (median = 94 %, IQR = 10.5). Kappa scores could be calculated for 11/17 parameters and demonstrated slight to fair agreement for two parameters and moderate to almost perfect agreement for nine parameters (median = 0.653; substantial agreement). The lowest Kappa scores were for pupil size and response to light. On a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), mean comfort level was 93 and mean reliability rating was 89 for on-site investigators. For remote users, the mean comfort and reliability ratings were 99 and 86, respectively. The average difference in reliability scores between on-site and remote investigators was 2.6, with the difference increasing as reliability scores decreased.

Conclusion

Remote evaluation of poisoned patients via Google Glass® is possible with a high degree of agreement on examination findings and ECG interpretation. Evaluation of pupil size and response to light is limited, likely by the quality of streaming video. Users of Google Glass® for teletoxicology reported high levels of comfort with the technology and found it reliable, though as reported reliability decreased, remote users were most affected. Further study should compare patient-centered outcomes when using HMDs for consultation to those resulting from telephone consultation.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Curry SC, Brooks DE, Skolnik AB, Gerkin RD, Glenn S. Effect of a medical toxicology admitting service on length of stay, cost, and mortality among inpatients discharged with poisoning-related diagnoses. J Med Toxicol. 2015;11(1):65–72. doi:10.1007/s13181-014-0418-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blizzard JC, Michels JE, Richardson WH, Reeder CE, Schulz RM, Holstege CP. Cost-benefit analysis of a regional poison center. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2008;46(5):450–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. LoVecchio F, Curry S, Waszolek K, Klemens J, Hovseth K, Glogan D. Poison control centers decrease emergency healthcare utilization costs. J Med Toxicol. 2008;4(4):221–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller TR, Lestina DC. Costs of poisoning in the United States and savings from poison control centers: a benefit-cost analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 1997;29(2):239–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zaloshnja E, Miller T, Jones P, et al. The potential impact of poison control centers on rural hospitalization rates for poisoning. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):2094–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zaloshnja E, Miller T, Jones P, et al. The impact of poison control centers on poisoning-related visits to EDs—United States, 2003. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(3):310–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prosser JM, Smith SW, Rhim ES, Olsen D, Nelson LS, Hoffman RS. Inaccuracy of ECG interpretations reported to the poison center. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(2):122–7. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.09.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chai PR, Babu KM, Boyer EW. The feasibility and acceptability of Google Glass for teletoxicology consults. J Med Toxicol. 2015;11(3):283–7. doi:10.1007/s13181-015-0495-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chai PR, Wu RY, Ranney ML, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of Google Glass for emergency department dermatology consultations. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(7):794–6. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.0248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Walker T. Google Glass: tech giant to halt sales of headset in current form—but vows to look to future. 2015. In: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/google-glass-tech-giant-to-halt-sales-of-headset-in-its-current-form-but-vows-to-look-to-future-9981488.html. Accessed 23 Dec 2015.

  12. Paul F. Heads up: Google Glass may be coming back. 2015. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2926442/wireless/heads-up-google-glass-may-be-coming-back.html. Accessed 23 Dec 2015.

  13. He J, Choi W, McCarley JS, Chaparro BS, Wang C. Texting while driving using Google Glass: promising but not distraction-free. Accid Anal Prev. 2015;81:218–29. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis J, Neider M. Through the looking (Google) glass: attentional costs in distracted visual search. J Vis. 2015;15(12):1360. doi:10.1167/15.12.1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to especially thank Angela Padilla-Jones, RN, BSN, for her efforts in coordinating this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron B. Skolnik.

Ethics declarations

This observational cohort study was reviewed and approved by our institutional review board and complied with our center’s best practices for human subject research. A waiver of consent was granted after demonstration of minimal potential harm to patients and strict compliance with information confidentiality practices.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Sources of Funding

Funding was provided by Banner Health and the Banner – University Medical Center Phoenix, Department of Graduate Medical Education.

Previous Presentation(s) of Data

None.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 75 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 52 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Skolnik, A.B., Chai, P.R., Dameff, C. et al. Teletoxicology: Patient Assessment Using Wearable Audiovisual Streaming Technology. J. Med. Toxicol. 12, 358–364 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-016-0567-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-016-0567-3

Keywords

Navigation