To Watch Before or Listen While Doing? A Randomized Pilot of Video-Modelling versus Telementored Tube Thoracostomy

Abstract

AbstractBackground:New care paradigms are required to enable remote life-saving interventions (RLSIs) in extreme environments such as disaster settings. Informatics may assist through just-in-time expert remote-telementoring (RTM) or video-modelling (VM). Currently, RTM relies on real-time communication that may not be reliable in some locations, especially if communications fail. Neither technique has been extensively developed however, and both may be required to be performed by inexperienced providers to save lives. A pilot comparison was thus conducted.Methods:Procedure-naïve Search-and-Rescue Technicians (SAR-Techs) performed a tube-thoracostomy (TT) on a surgical simulator, randomly allocated to RTM or VM. The VM group watched a pre-prepared video illustrating TT immediately prior, while the RTM group were remotely guided by an expert in real-time. Standard outcomes included success, safety, and tube-security for the TT procedure.Results:There were no differences in experience between the groups. Of the 13 SAR-Techs randomized to VM, 12/13 (92%) placed the TT successfully, safely, and secured it properly, while 100% (11/11) of the TT placed by the RTM group were successful, safe, and secure. Statistically, there was no difference (P = 1.000) between RTM or VM in safety, success, or tube security. However, with VM, one subject cut himself, one did not puncture the pleura, and one had barely adequate placement. There were no such issues in the mentored group. Total time was significantly faster using RTM (P = .02). However, if time-to-watch was discounted, VM was quicker (P = .000).Conclusions:Random evaluation revealed both paradigms have attributes. If VM can be utilized during “travel-time,” it is quicker but without facilitating “trouble shooting.” On the other hand, RTM had no errors in TT placement and facilitated guidance and remediation by the mentor, presumably avoiding failure, increasing safety, and potentially providing psychological support. Ultimately, both techniques appear to have merit and may be complementary, justifying continued research into the human-factors of performing RLSIs in extreme environments that are likely needed in natural and man-made disasters.