Current Technological Changes In Healthcare

Technological Trendsetters of Healthcare

Discuss about the Current Technological Changes in Healthcare.

Kudos to technological advancement, healthcare services is no longer confined within the walls of healthcare facilities. The large number of people that are involved today in developing newer technological means for humanity’s sake is huge and inspiring. Advancement in healthcare sector has facilitated easier diagnosis of diseases, where treatment is more personalized. Technology has provided with better means of conducting research, collecting data and dealing with patient care. The treatment efficiency has been transported to an all-new level due to the leap taken by technology towards innovation. Both the structure along with the organization of the medical field stands altered today because of technological advancement. It is a tedious process of enlisting all possible technological changes, which has been witnessed by the health care sector. A few of the highlighting achievements has been shortlisted and discussed in the current study.

A few of the latest technology that finds its use in healthcare sector has been discussed in the following sections:

Mobile Stroke Units (MSUs) comprises of specially built ambulances that has staff (paramedic and stroke physician) equipped with providing prompt care and assessing the condition of the patient (Walter et al., 2012). Even before reaching the hospital, blood work is carried out, CT (Computed Tomography) scan as well as TPA (Tissue Plasminogen Activator) administration is also performed in order to save time (Free et al., 2013). Maximum people lose their lives during a stroke due to lack of prompt care (Kunz et al., 2016). Most of the times, the patients arrive to the hospital in a state when they are beyond help (Itrat et al., 2016). Studies have proved the effectiveness of MSUs and have shown that the response time has considerably reduced and the mortality rate has gone down (Koch et al., 2016). The blood-pressure management has also improved post the implementation of MSUs in treatment of strokes (Ebinger et al., 2014). A very recent study has also shown that the MSUs equipped with CT scanners with the new software that helps in deducing the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (e-ASPECTS), facilitated acute stroke care (Grunwald et al., 2016). This helps in providing management of stroke and assessing the treatment option before reaching the hospital. A lot of valuable time and lives can be saved this way.

Miniature Leadless Pacemakers has become popular today due to its less bulky appearance in contrast to its previous versions (Ritter et al., 2015). They are specific for a single heart chamber and have proved to be more effective than the previous models. The Micra transcatheter is a commonly used miniature leadless pacemaker, which is specific to the ventricle of the heart (Reynolds et al., 2015). The conventional lead based pacemakers consisted of an external generator which used to be placed in the subcutaneous layer near the shoulder where it is connected to the electrodes, placed in the cardiac tissue (Tjong et al., 2015). Micra transcatheter has completely replaced the external generator and implanted directly in the ventricle and its implantation does not require a surgical procedure (Sperzel et al., 2015). The introduction of the Micro transcatheter has helped the patients avoid several complications associated with the conventional pacemakers. Some of the complications that were observed are breaks in insulation, obstruction of veins, infections (Udo et al., 2012). Conditions of haematoma and erosion of skin has been reported by patients (Kirkfeldt et al., 2013). The only limitation that cripples Micra is its single chamber technology (Seriwala et al., 2016). For a patient who would require dual chamber pace maker, would have to resort to the traditional pacemaker itself. There are two other leadless pacemakers, which is eyeing for a launch, namely, Nanostim and Wics (WiSE-CRT) (Auricchio et al., 2014).

Conclusion

Robotic Surgery has helped the healthcare sector to overcome several shortcomings that were associated with conventional surgical practices. It has several advantages over traditional surgical techniques, such as, enhanced level of motion, improved visualization and in-depth acuity provided with the help of monitors that has three-dimensional effect, ease and comfort of working increases the collective efficiency of the surgeon (Panait et al., 2014). Robotic Surgery Stimulator (RoSS), helps in providing effective surgical training with the help of simulation (Hagen et al., 2012). In this way, the live demo option as seen in traditional surgical training is avoided. A major advantage of robotic surgery is its ability to perform suturing similar to the technique applied in open surgeries, thereby reducing the complications related to anastomoses as faced during laproscopy (Randell et al., 2014). The predicament faced by the surgeons in case of fulcrum effect as well as shudder as part of performing laproscopy, is overcome completely wit h robotic assistance (Dulan et al., 2012). Robotic surgery is time efficient and is more cost effective in comparison to traditional surgical methods (Salman et al., 2013). The infamous da Vinci surgical system is used to carry out different kinds of surgeries such as cardiac, urologic, gynecologic, colorectal, thoracic surgeries (Abboudi et al., 2013). The only limitation faced by the health care facilities is the initial high cost of installation and trained personnel to handle the robotic assistance (Wilensky, 2016).

Nanotechnology is the call of the century and finds its use in several fields. Several attributes of nanotechnology are applied in healthcare, from nanobots to liposomes, acting as diagnosing means or delivery systems. Nanoparticles (NPs) in healthcare have a huge domain of application. The most effective one is in the field of drug delivery. The idea of targeted drug delivery had evolved to provide safer incorporation of drugs in the system. The issue of MDR (Multi-Drug Resistant) bacteria has put the researchers in a fix as the pathogens can no longer be combated with the regular antibiotics (Ingale and Chaudhari, 2013). The small size of the NPs makes it eligible for drug delivery as it provides larger surface area which allows the binding of the molecules that are to be delivered at the target size (Khademhosseini & Peppas, 2013). The issue of toxicity has also been solved today as researchers are developing biocompatible nanoparticles that do not have any adverse effect in the body (Vashisht et al., 2012). Their small size allows easy uptake by cells and tissues in the body (Bhattarai & Bhattarai, 2012). Studies have shown gold nanoparticles to be efficient in combating against MDR E. coli (Li et al., 2014). Gold nanoparticles are self-therapeutic in nature, it is also non-toxic, therefore proves to be a wise choice as a carrier (Khameneh et al., 2016). Discovery of theranostic nanoparticles has helped in diagnosing diseases by approaching the molecular level (Kaushik et al., 2015). The only limitation of NPs is its agglomeration in the body leading to toxicity (Tiwari, 2014). This has led to the emergence of nano biotechnology, which is working towards devising biocompatible scaffolds to reduce the toxicity (Yong, 2015). Other than drug delivery, NPs find extensible use as sensors and bio-imaging modules too.

References

The latest contribution to healthcare from the technological aspect has been contributed by development of Google glass as a part of trauma care. Google glass is a successful resultant of the breakthrough achieved in the information and telecommunication technology. Google glass appears like a traditional pair of glasses, but the contrasting attributes includes a processing unit, a display screen, a camera, a microphone, a bone conduction transducer and equipped with Wifi connectivity (Muensterer et al., 2014). Study has proved its utility in maintaining the sterility in the operation theatre (Wu, Tully & Dameff, 2014). The glass does not need to be touched to switch on. By simply tilting, the head a 20º-30º can switch on the glasses (Grushka & Ginzberg, 2014). It can also be used to record surgery sessions for future reference, which is completely, hands free (Andersen et al., 2015).Google glass has been helpful in studying forensic science too where a recorded assessment of autopsy session (Liebert et al., 2016). This is helpful because textual documentation needs to be accompanied by imagination, which is based on considerable knowledge of human anatomy (Albrecht et al., 2014). In forensic analysis, the limitation faced is the lower camera resolution, which cannot match with the higher resolution of DSLRs (Digital Single Lens Reflex) (Yu et al., 2016). The only drawback is the issue of privacy. The unprotected streaming of videos takes place on the Google server (Jawad et al., 2015).

Conclusion

The latest technological advancement provides humanity with hope; however, the assurance is short lived. The complexity of the diseases, the resistive nature of the disease causing organisms, the trend seems to change every day. The advancement level has to be more progressive to make sure that a single life is not lost due to lack of treatment or care. Funding receives the top priority when it comes to discussing about technological advancement. Healthcare sector paints two different pictures for the world, on one hand, the pretty picture of hope and other one is a dreary expense list. Receiving good care has become a luxurious commodity. Not everyone can afford it. The day these facilities are equally available and utilized by all, that day humanity would truly become technologically advanced in healthcare. A cost effective approach has to be devised in order to make quality healthcare accessible to everyone.

References:

Abboudi, H., Khan, M. S., Aboumarzouk, O., Guru, K. A., Challacombe, B., Dasgupta, P., & Ahmed, K. (2013). Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators–a systematic review. BJU international, 111(2), 194-205.

Albrecht, U. V., von Jan, U., Kuebler, J., Zoeller, C., Lacher, M., Muensterer, O. J., … & Hagemeier, L. (2014). Google Glass for documentation of medical findings: evaluation in forensic medicine. Journal of medical Internet research, 16(2), e53.

Andersen, D., Popescu, V., Cabrera, M. E., Shanghavi, A., Gomez, G., Marley, S., … & Wachs, J. (2015). Virtual annotations of the surgical field through an augmented reality transparent display. The Visual Computer, 1-18.

Auricchio, A., Delnoy, P. P., Butter, C., Brachmann, J., Van Erven, L., Spitzer, S., … & Regoli, F. (2014). Feasibility, safety, and short-term outcome of leadless ultrasound-based endocardial left ventricular resynchronization in heart failure patients: results of the Wireless Stimulation Endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) study. Europace, 16(5), 681-688.

Bhattarai, N., & Bhattarai, S. R. (2012). Theranostic nanoparticles: A recent breakthrough in nanotechnology. Journal of Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology, 2012.

Dulan, G., Rege, R. V., Hogg, D. C., Gilberg-Fisher, K. M., Arain, N. A., Tesfay, S. T., & Scott, D. J. (2012). Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery, 152(3), 477-488.

Ebinger, M., Winter, B., Wendt, M., Weber, J. E., Waldschmidt, C., Rozanski, M., … & Villringer, K. (2014). Effect of the use of ambulance-based thrombolysis on time to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke: a randomized clinical trial. Jama, 311(16), 1622-1631.

Free, C., Phillips, G., Watson, L., Galli, L., Felix, L., Edwards, P., … & Haines, A. (2013). The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med, 10(1), e1001363.

Grunwald, I. Q., Ragoschke-Schumm, A., Kettner, M., Schwindling, L., Roumia, S., Helwig, S., … & Lesmeister, M. (2016). First Automated Stroke Imaging Evaluation via Electronic Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score in a Mobile Stroke Unit. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 42(5-6), 332-338.

Grushka, J., & Ginzburg, E. (2014). Through the 10-mm looking glass: advances in minimally invasive surgery in trauma. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery, 103(2), 143-148.

Hagen, M. E., Pugin, F., Chassot, G., Huber, O., Buchs, N., Iranmanesh, P., & Morel, P. (2012). Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obesity surgery, 22(1), 52-61.

Ingale, A. G., & Chaudhari, A. N. (2013). Biogenic synthesis of nanoparticles and potential applications: An eco-friendly approach. Journal of Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology, 2013.

Itrat, A., Taqui, A., Cerejo, R., Briggs, F., Cho, S. M., Organek, N., … & Uchino, K. (2016). Telemedicine in prehospital stroke evaluation and thrombolysis: taking stroke treatment to the doorstep. JAMA neurology,73(2), 162-168.

Jawad, A., Trampleasure, O., Thaha, M., & Ahmed, S. (2015). Google Glass: a valid tool for surgical education? A case study. The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 97(10), 427-429.

Kaushik, A., Kumar, R., Jayant, R. D., & Nair, M. (2015). Nanostructured Gas Sensors for Health Care: An Overview. Journal of personalized nanomedicine, 1(1), 10.

Khademhosseini, A., & Peppas, N. A. (2013). Microâ€Âand Nanoengineering of Biomaterials for Healthcare Applications. Advanced healthcare materials,2(1), 10-12.

Khameneh, B., Diab, R., Ghazvini, K., & Bazzaz, B. S. F. (2016). Breakthroughs in bacterial resistance mechanisms and the potential ways to combat them. Microbial pathogenesis, 95, 32-42.

Kirkfeldt, R. E., Johansen, J. B., Nohr, E. A., Jørgensen, O. D., & Nielsen, J. C. (2013). Complications after cardiac implantable electronic device implantations: an analysis of a complete, nationwide cohort in Denmark.European heart journal, eht511.

Koch, P. M., Kunz, A., Ebinger, M., Geisler, F., Rozanski, M., Waldschmidt, C., … & Bollweg, K. (2016). Influence of distance to scene on time to thrombolysis in a specialized stroke ambulance. Stroke, 47(8), 2136-2140.

Kunz, A., Ebinger, M., Geisler, F., Rozanski, M., Waldschmidt, C., Weber, J. E., … & Villringer, K. (2016). Functional outcomes of pre-hospital thrombolysis in a mobile stroke treatment unit compared with conventional care: an observational registry study. The Lancet Neurology, 15(10), 1035-1043.

Li, X., Robinson, S. M., Gupta, A., Saha, K., Jiang, Z., Moyano, D. F., … & Rotello, V. M. (2014). Functional gold nanoparticles as potent antimicrobial agents against multi-drug-resistant bacteria. ACS nano, 8(10), 10682-10686.

Liebert, C. A., Zayed, M. A., Aalami, O., Tran, J., & Lau, J. N. (2016). Novel Use of Google Glass for Procedural Wireless Vital Sign Monitoring. Surgical innovation, 1553350616630142.

Morganti, P., Tishchenko, G., Palombo, M., Kelnar, I., Brozova, L., Spirkova, M., … & Carezzi, F. (2013). Chitin nanofibrils for biomimetic products: Nanoparticles and nanocomposite chitosan films in health-care.Marine Biomaterials: Isolation, Characterization and Application, 681-715.

Muensterer, O. J., Lacher, M., Zoeller, C., Bronstein, M., & Kübler, J. (2014). Google Glass in pediatric surgery: an exploratory study. International journal of surgery, 12(4), 281-289.

Panait, L., Shetty, S., Shewokis, P. A., & Sanchez, J. A. (2014). Do laparoscopic skills transfer to robotic surgery?. Journal of Surgical Research,187(1), 53-58.

Randell, R., Greenhalgh, J., Hindmarsh, J., Dowding, D., Jayne, D., Pearman, A., … & Kotze, A. (2014). Integration of robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration, and decision making: a realist process evaluation protocol. Implementation Science, 9(1), 1.

Reynolds, D., Duray, G. Z., Omar, R., Soejima, K., Neuzil, P., Zhang, S., … & Roberts, P. R. (2016). A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(6), 533-541.

Ritter, P., Duray, G. Z., Zhang, S., Narasimhan, C., Soejima, K., Omar, R., … & Reynolds, D. (2015). The rationale and design of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study: safety and efficacy of a novel miniaturized pacemaker. Europace, euv026.

Salman, M., Bell, T., Martin, J., Bhuva, K., Grim, R., & Ahuja, V. (2013). Use, cost, complications, and mortality of robotic versus nonrobotic general surgery procedures based on a nationwide database. The American surgeon,79(6), 553-560.

Seriwala, H. M., Khan, M. S., Munir, M. B., Bin Riaz, I., Riaz, H., Saba, S., & Voigt, A. H. (2016). Leadless pacemakers: A new era in cardiac pacing.Journal of cardiology, 67(1), 1-5.

Sperzel, J., Burri, H., Gras, D., Tjong, F. V., Knops, R. E., Hindricks, G., … & Defaye, P. (2015). State of the art of leadless pacing. Europace, euv096.

Tiwari, A. (Ed.). (2014). Advanced Healthcare Materials. John Wiley & Sons.

Udo, E. O., Zuithoff, N. P., van Hemel, N. M., de Cock, C. C., Hendriks, T., Doevendans, P. A., & Moons, K. G. (2012). Incidence and predictors of short-and long-term complications in pacemaker therapy: the FOLLOWPACE study. Heart Rhythm, 9(5), 728-735.

Vashist, S. K., Venkatesh, A. G., Mitsakakis, K., Czilwik, G., Roth, G., von Stetten, F., & Zengerle, R. (2012). Nanotechnology-based biosensors and diagnostics: technology push versus industrial/healthcare requirements.Bionanoscience, 2(3), 115-126.

Walter, S., Kostopoulos, P., Haass, A., Keller, I., Lesmeister, M., Schlechtriemen, T., … & Helwig, S. (2012). Diagnosis and treatment of patients with stroke in a mobile stroke unit versus in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Neurology, 11(5), 397-404.

Wilensky, G. R. (2016). Robotic Surgery: An Example of When Newer Is Not Always Better but Clearly More Expensive. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(1), 43-46.

Wu, T., Dameff, C., & Tully, J. (2014). Integrating Google Glass into simulation-based training: experiences and future directions. Journal of Biomedical Graphics and Computing, 4(2), 49.

Yong, C. W. (2015). Study of interactions between polymer nanoparticles and cell membranes at atomistic levels. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 370(1661), 20140036.

Yu, J., Ferniany, W., Guthrie, B., Parekh, S. G., & Ponce, B. (2016). Lessons Learned From Google Glass Telemedical Spark or Unfulfilled Promise?. Surgical innovation, 23(2), 156-165.