Bluetooth Tactical Headsets Improve The Speed of Accurate Patient Handoffs.

Daniel J Stinner, Cory B McEvoy, Michael A Broussard, Aaron D Nikolaus, Charles H Parker, Hector Santana, Jason M Karnopp, Jigar A Patel
{"title":"Bluetooth Tactical Headsets Improve The Speed of Accurate Patient Handoffs.","authors":"Daniel J Stinner, Cory B McEvoy, Michael A Broussard, Aaron D Nikolaus, Charles H Parker, Hector Santana, Jason M Karnopp, Jigar A Patel","doi":"10.55460/MAPM-TLNO","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Committee on En Route Combat Casualty Care recently ranked the patient handoff as their fourth research priority. Bluetooth technology has been introduced to the battlefield and has the potential to improve the tactical patient handoff. The purpose of this study is to compare the traditional methods of communication used in tactical medical evacuation by Special Operations medical personnel (radio push-to-talk [PTT] and Tactical Medic Intercom System [TM-ICS]) to Bluetooth communication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-four simulated tactical patient handoffs were performed to compare Bluetooth and traditional methods of communication used in tactical medical evacuation. Patient scenario order and method of communication were randomized. Accuracy and time required to complete the patient handoff were determined. The study took place using a rotary-wing aircraft kept at level 2 to simulate real-world background noise. Preferred method of communication for each study participant was determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in accuracy of the received patient handoffs between groups or patient handoff transmission times at the ramp of the aircraft. However, when comparing patient handoff times to the medical team within the aircraft, Bluetooth communication was significantly faster than both TM-ICS and radio PTT, while Bluetooth PTT and radio PTT were also significantly faster than TM-ICS. Bluetooth communication was ranked as the preferred method of handoff by all study participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study demonstrated that utilization of Bluetooth technology for patient handover results in faster handoffs compared with traditional methods without sacrificing any accuracy in a scenario with high levels of noise.</p>","PeriodicalId":53630,"journal":{"name":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55460/MAPM-TLNO","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Committee on En Route Combat Casualty Care recently ranked the patient handoff as their fourth research priority. Bluetooth technology has been introduced to the battlefield and has the potential to improve the tactical patient handoff. The purpose of this study is to compare the traditional methods of communication used in tactical medical evacuation by Special Operations medical personnel (radio push-to-talk [PTT] and Tactical Medic Intercom System [TM-ICS]) to Bluetooth communication.

Methods: Twenty-four simulated tactical patient handoffs were performed to compare Bluetooth and traditional methods of communication used in tactical medical evacuation. Patient scenario order and method of communication were randomized. Accuracy and time required to complete the patient handoff were determined. The study took place using a rotary-wing aircraft kept at level 2 to simulate real-world background noise. Preferred method of communication for each study participant was determined.

Results: There were no differences in accuracy of the received patient handoffs between groups or patient handoff transmission times at the ramp of the aircraft. However, when comparing patient handoff times to the medical team within the aircraft, Bluetooth communication was significantly faster than both TM-ICS and radio PTT, while Bluetooth PTT and radio PTT were also significantly faster than TM-ICS. Bluetooth communication was ranked as the preferred method of handoff by all study participants.

Conclusion: The study demonstrated that utilization of Bluetooth technology for patient handover results in faster handoffs compared with traditional methods without sacrificing any accuracy in a scenario with high levels of noise.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
蓝牙战术耳麦提高了准确移交病人的速度。
背景:途中战斗伤员救护委员会最近将病人交接列为第四个研究重点。蓝牙技术已被引入战场,并有可能改善战术病人交接。本研究的目的是将特种作战医疗人员在战术医疗后送中使用的传统通信方法(无线电一键通 [PTT] 和战术医疗对讲系统 [TM-ICS])与蓝牙通信进行比较:方法:进行了 24 次模拟战术病人交接,以比较战术医疗后送中使用的蓝牙通信方法和传统通信方法。病人的情景顺序和通信方法是随机的。确定了完成病人交接的准确性和所需时间。研究使用了保持在 2 级的旋转翼飞机来模拟真实世界的背景噪声。确定了每位研究参与者的首选交流方式:结果:在飞机停机坪上,各组之间接收病人递送信息的准确性和病人递送信息的传输时间没有差异。然而,在飞机内与医疗小组进行病人交接时间比较时,蓝牙通信明显快于 TM-ICS 和无线电 PTT,而蓝牙 PTT 和无线电 PTT 也明显快于 TM-ICS。蓝牙通信被所有研究参与者列为首选的交接方法:研究结果表明,与传统方法相比,利用蓝牙技术进行病人交接速度更快,而且在高噪音环境下不会降低任何准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊最新文献
Limitations of Triage in Military Mass Casualty Response: A Case Series. REBOA Use in a Medicalized Prehospital Setting Proposal for a First Protocol Based on the Delphi Method. Military Medical Student Specialty Preferences During the DHA Transition: A Retrospective Analysis. The Effect of Radiological Assessment of Volunteers for French Paratrooper Training A Five-Year Retrospective Study. Vascular Repair in Wartime Casualties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1