Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12(01): 120-132
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722614
Research Article

Are We Ready for Video Recognition and Computer Vision in the Intensive Care Unit? A Survey

Alzbeta Glancova
1   Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Quan T. Do
1   Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Devang K. Sanghavi
2   Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, United States
,
Pablo Moreno Franco
3   Department of Medicine, Critical Care, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, United States
,
Neethu Gopal
4   Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, United States
,
Lindsey M. Lehman
5   Mayo Clinic, Critical Care IMP, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Yue Dong
6   Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Brian W. Pickering
1   Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Vitaly Herasevich
7   Department of Anesthesiology and Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding There were no specific intramural or extramural funds for this project.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Video recording and video recognition (VR) with computer vision have become widely used in many aspects of modern life. Hospitals have employed VR technology for security purposes, however, despite the growing number of studies showing the feasibility of VR software for physiologic monitoring or detection of patient movement, its use in the intensive care unit (ICU) in real-time is sparse and the perception of this novel technology is unknown. The objective of this study is to understand the attitudes of providers, patients, and patient's families toward using VR in the ICU.

Design A 10-question survey instrument was used and distributed into two groups of participants: clinicians (MDs, advance practice providers, registered nurses), patients and families (adult patients and patients' relatives). Questions were specifically worded and section for free text-comments created to elicit respondents' thoughts and attitudes on potential issues and barriers toward implementation of VR in the ICU.

Setting The survey was conducted at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and Florida.

Results A total of 233 clinicians' and 50 patients' surveys were collected. Both cohorts favored VR under specific circumstances (e.g., invasive intervention and diagnostic manipulation). Acceptable reasons for VR usage according to clinicians were anticipated positive impact on patient safety (70%), and diagnostic suggestions and decision support (51%). A minority of providers was concerned that artificial intelligence (AI) would replace their job (14%) or erode professional skills (28%). The potential use of VR in lawsuits (81% clinicians) and privacy breaches (59% patients) were major areas of concern. Further identified barriers were lack of trust for AI, deterioration of the patient–clinician rapport. Patients agreed with VR unless it does not reduce nursing care or record sensitive scenarios.

Conclusion The survey provides valuable information on the acceptance of VR cameras in the critical care setting including an overview of real concerns and attitudes toward the use of VR technology in the ICU.

Keywords

artificial intelligence - video recognition - computer vision - intensive care unit - quality improvement study

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The survey study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. The study was reviewed by Institutional Review Board and given the identifier 18–001525.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 15 September 2020

Accepted: 26 November 2020

Article published online:
24 February 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Yuan YB, David GY, Zhao S. Machine learning in intelligent video and automated monitoring. Sci World J 2015; 2015: 570145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B. et al. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat Med 2019; 25 (01) 24-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 O'Connor M, Asdornwised U, Dempsey ML. et al. Using telehealth to reduce all-cause 30-day hospital readmissions among heart failure patients receiving skilled home health services. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (02) 238-247
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Magnus M, Sikka N, Cherian T, Lew SQ. Satisfaction and improvements in peritoneal dialysis outcomes associated with telehealth. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (01) 214-225
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Anders SH, Woods DD, Schweikhart S, Ebright P, Patterson E. The effects of health information technology change over time: a study of Tele-ICU functions. Appl Clin Inform 2012; 3 (02) 239-247
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liang Q, Xu L, Bao N. et al. Research on non-contact monitoring system for human physiological signal and body movement. Biosensors (Basel) 2019; 9 (02) 58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wu HY, Rubinstein M, Shih E. et al. Eulerian video magnification for revealing subtle changes in the world. ACM Trans Graph 2012; 31 (04) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cho OM, Kim H, Lee YW, Cho I. Clinical alarms in intensive care units: perceived obstacles of alarm management and alarm fatigue in nurses. Healthc Inform Res 2016; 22 (01) 46-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Johnson KR, Hagadorn JI, Sink DW. Alarm safety and alarm fatigue. Clin Perinatol 2017; 44 (03) 713-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 MacMurchy M, Stemler S, Zander M, Bonafide CP. Research: acceptability, feasibility, and cost of using video to evaluate alarm fatigue. Biomed Instrum Technol 2017; 51 (01) 25-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Davoudi A, Malhotra KR, Shickel B. et al. Intelligent ICU for autonomous patient monitoring using pervasive sensing and deep learning. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 8020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zhu J, Shi Y, Yang M. Heart rate detection based on computer vision. Paper presented at: 5th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Intelligence System; November 23–25, 2018; Nanjing, China:
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jagadev P, Giri LI. Non-contact monitoring of human respiration using infrared thermography and machine learning. Infrared Phys Technol 2020; 104: 103117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ṭarălungă DD, Mocanu B, Ṭapu R. Automatic real time derivation of breathing rate from thermal video sequences. In: Eskola H, Väisänen O, Viik J, Hyttinen J. eds. EMBEC & NBC. IFMBE Proceedings. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2017: 81-84
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Lucey P, Cohn JF, Matthews I. et al. Automatically detecting pain in video through facial action units. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 2011; 41 (03) 664-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sikka K, Ahmed AA, Diaz D. et al. Automated assessment of children's postoperative pain using computer vision. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (01) e124-e131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL. et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; 95: 103208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McKenna HT, Reiss IK, Martin DS. The significance of circadian rhythms and dysrhythmias in critical illness. J Intensive Care Soc 2017; 18 (02) 121-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Alkureishi MA, Lee WW, Lyons M. et al. Impact of electronic medical record use on the patient-doctor relationship and communication: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2016; 31 (05) 548-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Thevenot J, López MB, Hadid A. A survey on computer vision for assistive medical diagnosis from faces. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2018; 22 (05) 1497-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar