MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2996833635 · doi:10.1161/str.48.suppl_1.wp267

Abstract WP267: Clinical Simulation-based Usability Testing of a Mobile Telestroke System

2017· article· en· W2996833635 on OpenAlexaff
Sherita N. Chapman Smith, Prachi Mehndiratta, Jamie Ricks, Jamie Heath, Poanna Bennam, Qaiser Toqeer, Kaitlynne Heath, Andrés Navarro‐Ruiz, Moshe Feldman, Kevon M Hekmatdoost, Baaba Blankson, Muhammad Bhatti, Jeneane Henry, Basit Rahim, Theandra Madu, Richard Decker, Daniel Fellows, Dempsey Whitt, Vladimir Lavrentyev, Jason Wong, Pamela Brown, Felton Warren, Joseph P. Ornato

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsDempsey (Canada)Smiths Detection (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUsabilityTelemedicineMedical emergencySystem usability scaleStroke (engine)Rating scaleScale (ratio)Physical therapyKappaEmergency medicineHealth careComputer scienceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Mobile prehospital telestroke presents a novel solution to improve stroke diagnosis and reduce treatment times. This study aims to 1) understand perceptions of a mobile ambulance-based telestroke system from all users and 2) evaluate system usability during ambulance transport. Methods: A Critical Care ambulance was equipped with a mobile telemedicine system to perform remote stroke assessments. Scripted scenarios were performed by trained actors during transport and evaluated by physicians using the NIH stroke scale (NIHSS). Scores obtained during transport were compared with independent bedside and original scripted NIHSS scores. Participants completed the System Usability Scale (SUS), NASA task load index (NASA TLX), audio-video quality scale and a modified Acceptability of Technology survey after completing the NIHSS evaluations. In addition, interviews were conducted to evaluate user’s experience and perceptions. Descriptive analysis was used for all surveys. Weighted kappa was used to compare the agreement in NIHSS scores. A regression model was used to further account for variations. Results: Ten scripted scenarios were simulated twice during the mobile transport and once at bedside. All simulations were completed except for one. NIHSS scores between mobile, bedside and original scripted scenarios revealed good agreement [weighted kappa=0.76 (95% CI: 0.63-0.9, p=0.63)]. There were no statistically significant differences in NIHSS scores between mobile and bedside evaluations. The results were independent of stroke scenarios, physicians, and actors. Overall, 92% and 81% raters deemed video and audio quality as “good” or “excellent” (rating < 3) respectively. The overall mean SUS score was 69.1 (13.3). Content analysis identified strengths, usability issues (i.e. audibility and equipment stability during transport), and safety concerns. Conclusion: This study used in-situ simulation to evaluate the viability of a mobile telestroke system. Simulating stroke scenarios using actors during a real ambulance transport allowed us to assess a health technology without risking patient safety while capturing realistic environmental factors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies→French-language works237,207→