Patient monitoring with head-mounted displays

Liu, David; Jenkins, Simon; Sanderson, Penelope

doi:10.1097/aco.0b013e32833269c1

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The term ‘HMD’ refers to a class of head-worn displays capable of superimposing computer-generated imagery over the user's field of view 61. Generally, there are two classes of see-through HMDs: optical and video 4.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearable technology is an emerging manifestation of consumer electronics that has the potential to revolutionise healthcare. The novel hands-free design and clinically relevant functionalities of various wearable devices hold significant promise for surgery, but the breadth and quality of evidence supporting clinical implementation in the operating room remains unclear. The objective of this article is to provide an objective overview of the available literature regarding the use of wearable technology in surgery, both in clinical and simulated experimental settings. A systematic review examining the use of wearable technology in surgery was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases from inception through 15 January 2016. Three authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles and those that satisfied the defined inclusion criteria were selected for a full-text review. A total of 87 publications were included in this review. These articles predominantly described the use of Google Glass, GoPro or customised head-mounted displays (HMDs) in a wide range of intraoperative clinical settings. The included articles were categorised based on the highlighted areas of clinical impact, with the majority (56) discussing various applications for enhancing intraoperative safety and efficiency. Almost all articles cited technological limitations and privacy concerns as serious barriers to the implementation of wearable technology in the operating room. Evidence in the available literature regarding the use of wearable technology in the operating room shows promise, but high-quality clinical trials are needed to fully understand their clinical impact. Further, it will be essential to address existing technological limitations, develop healthcare-specific applications, and integrate privacy-protecting safeguards before it may be feasible for wearable devices to seamlessly integrate into the operative environment.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To be suitable for extended use in the anesthetic environment, a HMD needs to be comfortable to wear and easy to read. Previously examined HMDs were often bulky or otherwise difficult to wear, which was found to lead to discomfort . Google Glass, however, does not appear to suffer from this issue as 90% of anesthetists were comfortable wearing the device, and 86% found the device easy to read.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Head‐mounted displays (HMDs) allow the augmentation of all or part of a user's field of vision with additional information provided by a computer system. In the anesthetic context, linking a HMD system with the patient monitoring system permits the continuous and obligatory inclusion of patient monitoring parameters into the user's field of view, avoiding the need to turn the head away from the patient to view the monitor display . HMDs have long been the subject of both conceptual and practical interest in the literature surrounding patient monitoring in anesthesia .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient monitoring with Google Glass: a pilot study of a novel monitoring technology

Drake‐Brockman

Datta

Ungern‐Sternberg

2016

Pediatric Anesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Together our findings suggest that there may be benefits of using HWDs in multiple patient contexts. These findings extend the potential advantages for HWDs beyond previously-demonstrated benefits for anesthetists during surgery (Liu, Jenkins, & Sanderson, 2009a;Liu, Jenkins, et al, 2009b;.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…HWDs have been trialed in several professional domains but their adoption is not yet widespread. Within healthcare, HWDs have been explored as a way to supplement anesthesiologists' computer monitors (Liu, Jenkins, & Sanderson, 2009b), allowing doctors to spend more time focusing directly on patients than on monitoring equipment, and, in at least one reported instance, to detect an unexpected patient event that may have otherwise gone unnoticed . In other domains, HWDs and head-up displays have helped pilots to detect events (Ververs & Wickens, 1998) and to process multiple streams of visual information (Wickens & Long, 1995).…”

Section: Mobile Monitoring and Notification Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating head-worn displays for alarm prioritisation and situation awareness in multiple-patient contexts

Pascale¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare people's ability to detect peripherally presented stimuli on a monocular head-worn display (HWD) versus a conventional screen. Background: Visual attention capture has been systematically investigated, but not with respect to HWDs. How stimulus properties affect attention capture is likely to be different on an HWD when compared to a computer display. Method: Participants performed an ongoing perceptual task and attempted to detect stimuli that were displayed peripherally on either a computer monitor or a monocular HWD. Results: Participants were less able to detect peripheral stimuli when the stimuli were presented on an HWD than when presented on a computer monitor. Moreover, the disadvantage of the HWD was more pronounced when peripheral stimuli were less distinct and when the stimuli were presented further into the periphery Conclusion: Presenting stimuli on a monocular head-worn display reduces participants' ability to notice peripheral visual stimuli compared to presentation on a normal computer monitor. This effect increases as stimuli are presented further in the periphery, but can be ameliorated to a degree by using high-contrast stimuli. Application: The findings are useful for designers creating visual stimuli intended to capture attention when viewed on a peripherally positioned monocular head-worn display.

show abstract

Patient monitoring with head-mounted displays

Cited by 25 publications

References 24 publications

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

Patient monitoring with Google Glass: a pilot study of a novel monitoring technology

Evaluating head-worn displays for alarm prioritisation and situation awareness in multiple-patient contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About