Google Glass for Documentation of Medical Findings: Evaluation in Forensic Medicine

• DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3225
• Publication Date: 2014-02-12T15:04:33Z
• Authors: Urs-Vito Albrecht; Ute von Jan; Joachim Kuebler; Christoph Zoeller; Martin Lacher; Oliver J Muensterer; Max Ettinger; Michael Klintschar; Lars Hagemeier
• Keywords: Adult; Male; Original Paper; Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics; 05 social sciences; R858-859.7; Documentation; Forensic Medicine; Middle Aged; Mobile Applications; Medical Records; 3. Good health; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; Privacy; Photography; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Female; 0501 psychology and cognitive sciences; Autopsy; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270; 10. No inequality

Background: Google Glass is a promising premarket device that includes an optical head-mounted display. Several proof of concept reports exist, but there little scientific evidence regarding its use in medical setting. Objective: The objective this study was to empirically determine the feasibility deploying forensics Methods: used combination with self-developed app allowed for hands-free operation during autopsy and postmortem examinations 4 decedents performed by 2 physicians. A digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera image comparison. In addition, 6 forensic examiners (3 male, 3 female; age range 23-48 years, mean 32.8 SD 9.6; work experience 6.2 8.5) were asked evaluate 159 images quality on 5-point Likert scale, specifically color discrimination, brightness, sharpness, their satisfaction acquired region interest. Statistical evaluations how compares conventionally images. Results: All received good (median 4) very ratings 5) all categories. Autopsy taken (n=32) significantly lower than those DSLR (n=17) (region interest: z=–5.154, P<.001; sharpness: z=–7.898, color: z=–4.407, P<.001, brightness: z=–3.187, P=.001). For 110 (Glass: n=54, camera: n=56), interest (z=–8.390, P<.001) brightness (z=–540, P=.007) lower. interrater reliability, intraclass correlation (ICC) values (ICC=.723, 95% CI .667-.771, examination (ICC=.758, .727-.787, P<.001). Postmortem using took 42.6 seconds longer done (z=–2.100, P=.04 Wilcoxon signed rank test). battery charge quickly decreased; average 5.5% (SD 1.85) capacity spent per (0.81% minute or 0.79% picture). Conclusions: efficient acquiring documentation medicine, inferior compared camera. Images categories setting examination. effort necessary achieving objectives higher when thus extending duration. Its relative high power consumption low also disadvantage. At current stage development, may be adequate tool education. deployment clinical care, issues such as hygiene, data protection, privacy need addressed are currently limiting chances professional use.