Reliability of Robotic Telemedicine for Assessing Critically Ill Patients with the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score and Glasgow Coma Scale

Amelia K. Adcock, Heidi Kosiorek, Prachi Parich, Alyssa Chauncey, Qing Wu, Bart M Demaerschalk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Telemedicine is increasingly utilized in the evaluation of critically ill patients, including those with decreased level of consciousness (LOC) or coma. Improving access to providers with neurologic expertise affords earlier triage and directed patient management. However, objective data regarding the reliability of using standardized coma scales, traditionally employed at the bedside for remote assessment, are largely lacking. Hypothesis: Bedside and remote assessments of patients with decreased LOC, using either the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) or Full scale Of UnResponsiveness (FOUR), score are equivalent. Methods: Prospective trial comparing the reliability of bedside and remote coma assessments using GCS or FOUR score clinical evaluation tools utilizing robotic telepresence technology. Total scores of the GCS and FOUR score were compared between bedside and remote physician assessors by paired t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). Results: One hundred subjects were enrolled. Mean age was 70.8 (±15.9) years and the average examination time took 5.16 (±2.04) minutes. Mean GCS total score at bedside was 7.5 (±3.67) versus examination conducted remotely 7.23 (±3.85); difference in scores was 0.25 (±0.10); p = 0.01. Mean FOUR total score at bedside was 9.63 (±4.76) versus remote 9.21 (±4.74); difference in scores was 0.40 (±2.00); p = 0.05. PCC for GCS was 0.966; p < 0.001, and for FOUR score 0.912; p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent of remote providers rated GCS and 89% rated FOUR score as good (4/5) regarding overall satisfaction and ease of use. Conclusions: Differences between total bedside and remote GCS and FOUR scores were small. Furthermore, PCCs between remote and bedside assessments were excellent: 0.97 (GCS) and 0.91 (FOUR). These results suggest that LOC can be reliably assessed using existing robotic telemedicine technology. Telemedicine could be adopted to help evaluate critically ill patients in neurologically underserved areas.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)555-560
Number of pages6
JournalTelemedicine and e-Health
Volume23
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2017

Fingerprint

Glasgow Coma Scale
Telemedicine
Robotics
Critical Illness
Coma
Consciousness
Technology
Triage
Nervous System
Physicians

Keywords

  • coma
  • critical care
  • FOUR Score
  • Glasgow Coma Scale
  • intensive care units
  • neurology
  • remote consultation
  • Telemedicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Health Informatics
  • Health Information Management

Cite this

Reliability of Robotic Telemedicine for Assessing Critically Ill Patients with the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score and Glasgow Coma Scale. / Adcock, Amelia K.; Kosiorek, Heidi; Parich, Prachi; Chauncey, Alyssa; Wu, Qing; Demaerschalk, Bart M.

In: Telemedicine and e-Health, Vol. 23, No. 7, 01.07.2017, p. 555-560.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Adcock, Amelia K. ; Kosiorek, Heidi ; Parich, Prachi ; Chauncey, Alyssa ; Wu, Qing ; Demaerschalk, Bart M. / Reliability of Robotic Telemedicine for Assessing Critically Ill Patients with the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score and Glasgow Coma Scale. In: Telemedicine and e-Health. 2017 ; Vol. 23, No. 7. pp. 555-560.
@article{4d3a5cb6de5d4250a012ba7fd86f88ca,
title = "Reliability of Robotic Telemedicine for Assessing Critically Ill Patients with the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score and Glasgow Coma Scale",
abstract = "Purpose: Telemedicine is increasingly utilized in the evaluation of critically ill patients, including those with decreased level of consciousness (LOC) or coma. Improving access to providers with neurologic expertise affords earlier triage and directed patient management. However, objective data regarding the reliability of using standardized coma scales, traditionally employed at the bedside for remote assessment, are largely lacking. Hypothesis: Bedside and remote assessments of patients with decreased LOC, using either the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) or Full scale Of UnResponsiveness (FOUR), score are equivalent. Methods: Prospective trial comparing the reliability of bedside and remote coma assessments using GCS or FOUR score clinical evaluation tools utilizing robotic telepresence technology. Total scores of the GCS and FOUR score were compared between bedside and remote physician assessors by paired t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). Results: One hundred subjects were enrolled. Mean age was 70.8 (±15.9) years and the average examination time took 5.16 (±2.04) minutes. Mean GCS total score at bedside was 7.5 (±3.67) versus examination conducted remotely 7.23 (±3.85); difference in scores was 0.25 (±0.10); p = 0.01. Mean FOUR total score at bedside was 9.63 (±4.76) versus remote 9.21 (±4.74); difference in scores was 0.40 (±2.00); p = 0.05. PCC for GCS was 0.966; p < 0.001, and for FOUR score 0.912; p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent of remote providers rated GCS and 89{\%} rated FOUR score as good (4/5) regarding overall satisfaction and ease of use. Conclusions: Differences between total bedside and remote GCS and FOUR scores were small. Furthermore, PCCs between remote and bedside assessments were excellent: 0.97 (GCS) and 0.91 (FOUR). These results suggest that LOC can be reliably assessed using existing robotic telemedicine technology. Telemedicine could be adopted to help evaluate critically ill patients in neurologically underserved areas.",
keywords = "coma, critical care, FOUR Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, intensive care units, neurology, remote consultation, Telemedicine",
author = "Adcock, {Amelia K.} and Heidi Kosiorek and Prachi Parich and Alyssa Chauncey and Qing Wu and Demaerschalk, {Bart M}",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/tmj.2016.0225",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "555--560",
journal = "Telemedicine Journal and e-Health",
issn = "1530-5627",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability of Robotic Telemedicine for Assessing Critically Ill Patients with the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score and Glasgow Coma Scale

AU - Adcock, Amelia K.

AU - Kosiorek, Heidi

AU - Parich, Prachi

AU - Chauncey, Alyssa

AU - Wu, Qing

AU - Demaerschalk, Bart M

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - Purpose: Telemedicine is increasingly utilized in the evaluation of critically ill patients, including those with decreased level of consciousness (LOC) or coma. Improving access to providers with neurologic expertise affords earlier triage and directed patient management. However, objective data regarding the reliability of using standardized coma scales, traditionally employed at the bedside for remote assessment, are largely lacking. Hypothesis: Bedside and remote assessments of patients with decreased LOC, using either the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) or Full scale Of UnResponsiveness (FOUR), score are equivalent. Methods: Prospective trial comparing the reliability of bedside and remote coma assessments using GCS or FOUR score clinical evaluation tools utilizing robotic telepresence technology. Total scores of the GCS and FOUR score were compared between bedside and remote physician assessors by paired t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). Results: One hundred subjects were enrolled. Mean age was 70.8 (±15.9) years and the average examination time took 5.16 (±2.04) minutes. Mean GCS total score at bedside was 7.5 (±3.67) versus examination conducted remotely 7.23 (±3.85); difference in scores was 0.25 (±0.10); p = 0.01. Mean FOUR total score at bedside was 9.63 (±4.76) versus remote 9.21 (±4.74); difference in scores was 0.40 (±2.00); p = 0.05. PCC for GCS was 0.966; p < 0.001, and for FOUR score 0.912; p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent of remote providers rated GCS and 89% rated FOUR score as good (4/5) regarding overall satisfaction and ease of use. Conclusions: Differences between total bedside and remote GCS and FOUR scores were small. Furthermore, PCCs between remote and bedside assessments were excellent: 0.97 (GCS) and 0.91 (FOUR). These results suggest that LOC can be reliably assessed using existing robotic telemedicine technology. Telemedicine could be adopted to help evaluate critically ill patients in neurologically underserved areas.

AB - Purpose: Telemedicine is increasingly utilized in the evaluation of critically ill patients, including those with decreased level of consciousness (LOC) or coma. Improving access to providers with neurologic expertise affords earlier triage and directed patient management. However, objective data regarding the reliability of using standardized coma scales, traditionally employed at the bedside for remote assessment, are largely lacking. Hypothesis: Bedside and remote assessments of patients with decreased LOC, using either the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) or Full scale Of UnResponsiveness (FOUR), score are equivalent. Methods: Prospective trial comparing the reliability of bedside and remote coma assessments using GCS or FOUR score clinical evaluation tools utilizing robotic telepresence technology. Total scores of the GCS and FOUR score were compared between bedside and remote physician assessors by paired t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). Results: One hundred subjects were enrolled. Mean age was 70.8 (±15.9) years and the average examination time took 5.16 (±2.04) minutes. Mean GCS total score at bedside was 7.5 (±3.67) versus examination conducted remotely 7.23 (±3.85); difference in scores was 0.25 (±0.10); p = 0.01. Mean FOUR total score at bedside was 9.63 (±4.76) versus remote 9.21 (±4.74); difference in scores was 0.40 (±2.00); p = 0.05. PCC for GCS was 0.966; p < 0.001, and for FOUR score 0.912; p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent of remote providers rated GCS and 89% rated FOUR score as good (4/5) regarding overall satisfaction and ease of use. Conclusions: Differences between total bedside and remote GCS and FOUR scores were small. Furthermore, PCCs between remote and bedside assessments were excellent: 0.97 (GCS) and 0.91 (FOUR). These results suggest that LOC can be reliably assessed using existing robotic telemedicine technology. Telemedicine could be adopted to help evaluate critically ill patients in neurologically underserved areas.

KW - coma

KW - critical care

KW - FOUR Score

KW - Glasgow Coma Scale

KW - intensive care units

KW - neurology

KW - remote consultation

KW - Telemedicine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024392879&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024392879&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/tmj.2016.0225

DO - 10.1089/tmj.2016.0225

M3 - Article

C2 - 28085631

AN - SCOPUS:85024392879

VL - 23

SP - 555

EP - 560

JO - Telemedicine Journal and e-Health

JF - Telemedicine Journal and e-Health

SN - 1530-5627

IS - 7

ER -