Role of Google Glass in improving patient satisfaction for otolaryngology residents: a pilot study

Seeing Yourself Through the Learner's Eyes: Incorporating Smart Glasses Into Objective Structured Teaching Exercises for Faculty Development

INTRODUCTION

Although physicians gain clinical knowledge in their specialty, it does not mean they receive adequate instruction to teach and provide feedback. Using smart glasses (SG) to provide educators with a first-person learner perspective has not been explored in faculty development such as Objective Structured Teaching Exercises (OSTEs).

METHODS

Integrated within a 6-session continuing medical education-bearing certificate course, this descriptive study involved one session where participants provided feedback to a standardized student in an OSTE. Participants were recorded by mounted wall cameras (MWCs) and SG. They received verbal feedback on their performance based on a self-designed assessment tool. Participants reviewed the recorded content and identified areas for improvement, completed a survey about their experience with SG, and wrote a narrative reflection.

RESULTS

Seventeen physicians at the assistant professor level participated in the session; data were analyzed on the 14 who had both MWC and SG recordings and who also completed the survey and reflection. All were comfortable with the standardized student wearing SG and indicated it did not affect communication. Eighty-five percent of the participants felt the SG provided additional feedback not available with the MWC, with majority noting additional feedback was related to eye contact, body language, voice inflection, and tone. Eighty-six percent see value in using SG for faculty development, and 79% felt that periodically using SG in their teaching would improve quality.

CONCLUSION

Use of SG during an OSTE on giving feedback was a nondistracting and positive experience. SG provided affective feedback otherwise not perceived from a standard MWC.

The Appalachia Mind Health Initiative (AMHI): a pragmatic randomized clinical trial of adjunctive internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for treating major depressive disorder among primary care patients

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disease morbidity. Combined treatment with antidepressant medication (ADM) plus psychotherapy yields a much higher MDD remission rate than ADM only. But 77% of US MDD patients are nonetheless treated with ADM only despite strong patient preferences for psychotherapy. This mismatch is due at least in part to a combination of cost considerations and limited availability of psychotherapists, although stigma and reluctance of PCPs to refer patients for psychotherapy are also involved. Internet-based cognitive behaviorial therapy (i-CBT) addresses all of these problems.

METHODS

Enrolled patients (n = 3360) will be those who are beginning ADM-only treatment of MDD in primary care facilities throughout West Virginia, one of the poorest and most rural states in the country. Participating treatment providers and study staff at West Virginia University School of Medicine (WVU) will recruit patients and, after obtaining informed consent, administer a baseline self-report questionnaire (SRQ) and then randomize patients to 1 of 3 treatment arms with equal allocation: ADM only, ADM + self-guided i-CBT, and ADM + guided i-CBT. Follow-up SRQs will be administered 2, 4, 8, 13, 16, 26, 39, and 52 weeks after randomization. The trial has two primary objectives: to evaluate aggregate comparative treatment effects across the 3 arms and to estimate heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). The primary outcome will be episode remission based on a modified version of the patient-centered Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ). The sample was powered to detect predictors of HTE that would increase the proportional remission rate by 20% by optimally assigning individuals as opposed to randomly assigning them into three treatment groups of equal size. Aggregate comparative treatment effects will be estimated using intent-to-treat analysis methods. Cumulative inverse probability weights will be used to deal with loss to follow-up. A wide range of self-report predictors of MDD heterogeneity of treatment effects based on previous studies will be included in the baseline SRQ. A state-of-the-art ensemble machine learning method will be used to estimate HTE.

DISCUSSION

The study is innovative in using a rich baseline assessment and in having a sample large enough to carry out a well-powered analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effects. We anticipate finding that self-guided and guided i-CBT will both improve outcomes compared to ADM only. We also anticipate finding that the comparative advantages of adding i-CBT to ADM will vary significantly across patients. We hope to develop a stable individualized treatment rule that will allow patients and treatment providers to improve aggregate treatment outcomes by deciding collaboratively when ADM treatment should be augmented with i-CBT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04120285 . Registered on October 19, 2019.

A Systematic Review of the Use of Google Glass in Graduate Medical Education

BACKGROUND

Graduate medical education (GME) has emphasized the assessment of trainee competencies and milestones; however, sufficient in-person assessment is often constrained. Using mobile hands-free devices, such as Google Glass (GG) for telemedicine, allows for remote supervision, education, and assessment of residents.

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed available literature on the use of GG in GME in the clinical learning environment, its use for resident supervision and education, and its clinical utility and technical limitations.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in accordance with 2009 PRISMA guidelines. Applicable studies were identified through a review of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases for articles published from January 2013 to August 2018. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles that reported using GG in GME and assessed the quality of the studies. A systematic review of these studies appraised the literature for descriptions of its utility in GME.

RESULTS

Following our search and review process, 37 studies were included. The majority evaluated GG in surgical specialties (n = 23) for the purpose of surgical/procedural skills training or supervision. GG was predominantly used for video teleconferencing, and photo and video capture. Highlighted positive aspects of GG use included point-of-view broadcasting and capacity for 2-way communication. Most studies cited drawbacks that included suboptimal battery life and HIPAA concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

GG shows some promise as a device capable of enhancing GME. Studies evaluating GG in GME are limited by small sample sizes and few quantitative data. Overall experience with use of GG in GME is generally positive.

Progression of Emergency Medicine Resident Patient Experience Scores by Level of Training

Background:

Patient satisfaction surveys are vital to measuring a patient’s experience of care. How scores of patients managed by emergency medicine (EM) residents change as residents progress through training is not known.

Objectives:

To evaluate whether EM residents’ patient satisfaction scores improve as residency training progresses, similar to clinical skill improvement.

Methods:

A retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated the correlation of patient satisfaction scores with EM resident year of training from 2015 through 2017. We evaluated for a change in score over time for the 4 “physician questions” and the “overall” score.

Results:

We evaluated 1684 Press Ganey surveys linked to 40 EM resident physicians during the study period. The mean top box scores for the 4 physician questions (concern for comfort [P = .72], courtesy [P = .55], informative about treatment [P = .46], and listening [P = .91]) and overall assessment of emergency department care (P = .51) were not significantly improved over the course of resident.

Conclusion:

We did not observe a difference in EM residents’ patient experience scores as their level of training progressed. Comprehensive patient experience training for residents might be needed.

Using Google Glass in Surgical Settings: Systematic Review

Background

In recent years, wearable devices have become increasingly attractive and the health care industry has been especially drawn to Google Glass because of its ability to serve as a head-mounted wearable device. The use of Google Glass in surgical settings is of particular interest due to the hands-free device potential to streamline workflow and maintain sterile conditions in an operating room environment.

Objective

The aim is to conduct a systematic evaluation of the literature on the feasibility and acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings and to assess the potential benefits and limitations of its application.

Methods

The literature was searched for articles published between January 2013 and May 2017. The search included the following databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO (EBSCO), and IEEE Xplore. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text articles. Original research articles that evaluated the feasibility, usability, or acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings were included. This review was completed following the Preferred Reporting Results of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Results

Of the 520 records obtained, 31 met all predefined criteria and were included in this review. Google Glass was used in various surgical specialties. Most studies were in the United States (23/31, 74%) and all were conducted in hospital settings: 29 in adult hospitals (29/31, 94%) and two in children’s hospitals (2/31, 7%). Sample sizes of participants who wore Google Glass ranged from 1 to 40. Of the 31 studies, 25 (81%) were conducted under real-time conditions or actual clinical care settings, whereas the other six (19%) were conducted under simulated environment. Twenty-six studies were pilot or feasibility studies (84%), three were case studies (10%), and two were randomized controlled trials (6%). The majority of studies examined the potential use of Google Glass as an intraoperative intervention (27/31, 87%), whereas others observed its potential use in preoperative (4/31, 13%) and postoperative settings (5/31, 16%). Google Glass was utilized as a videography and photography device (21/31, 68%), a vital sign monitor (6/31, 19%), a surgical navigation display (5/31, 16%), and as a videoconferencing tool to communicate with remote surgeons intraoperatively (5/31, 16%). Most studies reported moderate or high acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings. The main reported limitations of using Google Glass utilization were short battery life (8/31, 26%) and difficulty with hands-free features (5/31, 16%).

Conclusions

There are promising feasibility and usability data of using Google Glass in surgical settings with particular benefits for surgical education and training. Despite existing technical limitations, Google Glass was generally well received and several studies in surgical settings acknowledged its potential for training, consultation, patient monitoring, and audiovisual recording.

Using Google Glass in Nonsurgical Medical Settings: Systematic Review

Background

Wearable technologies provide users hands-free access to computer functions and are becoming increasingly popular on both the consumer market and in various industries. The medical industry has pioneered research and implementation of head-mounted wearable devices, such as Google Glass. Most of this research has focused on surgical interventions; however, other medical fields have begun to explore the potential of this technology to support both patients and clinicians.

Objective

Our aim was to systematically evaluate the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of using Google Glass in nonsurgical medical settings and to determine the benefits, limitations, and future directions of its application.

Methods

This review covers literature published between January 2013 and May 2017. Searches included PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, INSPEC (Ebsco), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), IEEE Explore, Web of Science, Scopus, and Compendex. The search strategy sought all articles on Google Glass. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed full-text articles, and extracted data from articles that met all predefined criteria. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation by the senior author. Included studies were original research articles that evaluated the feasibility, usability, or acceptability of Google Glass in nonsurgical medical settings. The preferred reporting results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for reporting of results.

Results

Of the 852 records examined, 51 met all predefined criteria, including patient-centered (n=21) and clinician-centered studies (n=30). Patient-centered studies explored the utility of Google Glass in supporting patients with motor impairments (n=8), visual impairments (n=5), developmental and psychiatric disorders (n=2), weight management concerns (n=3), allergies (n=1), or other health concerns (n=2). Clinician-centered studies explored the utility of Google Glass in student training (n=9), disaster relief (n=4), diagnostics (n=2), nursing (n=1), autopsy and postmortem examination (n=1), wound care (n=1), behavioral sciences (n=1), and various medical subspecialties, including, cardiology (n=3), radiology (n=3), neurology (n=1), anesthesiology (n=1), pulmonology (n=1), toxicology (n=1), and dermatology (n=1). Most of the studies were conducted in the United States (40/51, 78%), did not report specific age information for participants (38/51, 75%), had sample size <30 participants (29/51, 57%), and were pilot or feasibility studies (31/51, 61%). Most patient-centered studies (19/21, 90%) demonstrated feasibility with high satisfaction and acceptability among participants, despite a few technical challenges with the device. A number of clinician-centered studies (11/30, 37%) reported low to moderate satisfaction among participants, with the most promising results being in the area of student training. Studies varied in sample size, approach for implementation of Google Glass, and outcomes assessment.

Conclusions

The use of Google Glass in nonsurgical medical settings varied. More promising results regarding the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of using Google Glass were seen in patient-centered studies and student training settings. Further research evaluating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Google Glass as an intervention to improve important clinical outcomes is warranted.