"Why would I listen to 'lub dub' when I can see everything?" said a doctor quoted in today's Wall Street Journal (see "Can Mobile Monitoring Devices Improve Medical Treatment?"). "Dr. Topol, a cardiologist in San Diego, carries with him instead a portable ultrasound device roughly the size of a cellphone [see image]. When he puts it to a patient's chest, the device allows him to peer directly into the heart. The patient looks, too; together, they check out the muscle, the valves, the rhythm, the blood flow."
Doctors, especially cardiologists, are notorious gadget geeks, so you have to take their enthusiasm for electronic devices with a grain of salt, especially when they claim that the devices will improve health care.
"[Dr. Topol] and other physicians say the technology can not only improve diagnoses and treatment, but also revolutionize how doctors and patients think about health care. Mobile tools allow physicians to monitor vital signs, note changes in activity levels and verify that medications have been taken, without ever seeing a patient face to face."
I wasn't aware that physicians were even interested in "verifying that medications have been taken" let alone that they would buy expensive devices to help them do that. Most physicians don't want to take on that responsibility and be legally liable. Also, who will pay for the service, especially when the physician makes a substantial investment in devices? The same goes for "monitoring vital signs" and other forms of monitoring patients from afar. "We're getting virtual touch, rather than actual touch," says Dr. Topol.
Dr. Topol "found that many [of his] patients are more willing to make lifestyle changes that keep them healthy when they can monitor the consequences of their actions in real time. A doctor can talk 'until he's blue in the face,' he says, but it sometimes takes cold, hard data to motivate a patient."
Social gaming enthusiasts disagree. "We tried to give people constant feedback about [patients'] health, but for a lot of people, more bad news and negative feedback just didn't work," said Adam Bosworth, the chief technology officer at Keas Inc., whose clients include Pfizer Inc. and Novartis Inc. "If you keep giving someone negative feedback, they will eventually change the channel to the game channel. One day we decided to become that game channel." Bosworth was quoted in another Wall Street Journal article published today (see "Health Care Social Gaming Start-Ups").
So, which technology is better for helping people change their lifestyles and improve their health? Social media games or remote monitoring devices?
Mobile monitoring device always better. There are several reason for it and one most important is you are always touch with your mobile at anywhere anytime and for that you can be use it anywhere.
ReplyDeletemobile signal booster
Whoa! This just blew my mind! I guess I shouldn't be shocked that there are devices like this out on the market. It seems like most of these device's designs were taken from some type of 70s-90s sci fi show. I noticed you talking about your son's iPad and I wanted to tell you that I found an app that utilizes electronic health records. Now consumers and doctors can track their medical records on there iPad. I also saw another tablet used specifically for physical therapy. I have to ask my granmother's physical therapist what the name of it is but the thing sure is neat. I love how EHR Companies are implementing their framework through these mobile devices. Now I want to buy this ultrasound device and visit my pregnant sister. Thanks for the knowledge! Keep posting!
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that mobile monitoring devices are better.
ReplyDeleteMobile monitoring devices are better then other devices because by these devices in emergency we can easily get the results at home. Most important is that they are easy to use for patients.
ReplyDelete