Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T22:36:41.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixed-reality technology for clinical communication: objective assessment of the HoloLens 2 as a clinical communication device in a simulated on-call scenario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2023

L Orchard Open the ORCID record for L Orchard [Opens in a new window] ,
M Van ,
J Abbas ,
R Malik ,
J Stevenson  and
N Tolley
L Orchard*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, St Mary's Hospital, Praed St, London, UK
M Van
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, St Mary's Hospital, Praed St, London, UK
J Abbas
Affiliation:
Human Factors Academy, Manchester University NHS Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
R Malik
Affiliation:
Medical School, Imperial College London, London, UK
J Stevenson
Affiliation:
Infomation Technology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
N Tolley
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, St Mary's Hospital, Praed St, London, UK
*
Corresponding author: L Orchard; Email: laurence.orchard@nhs.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Specialty on-call clinicians cover large areas and complex workloads. This study aimed to assess clinical communication using the mixed-reality HoloLens 2 device within a simulated on-call scenario.

Method

This study was structured as a randomised, within-participant, controlled study. Thirty ENT trainees used either the HoloLens 2 or a traditional telephone to communicate a clinical case to a consultant. The quality of the clinical communication was scored objectively and subjectively.

Results

Clinical communication using the HoloLens 2 scored statistically higher than telephone (n = 30) (11.9 of 15 vs 10.2 of 15; p = 0.001). Subjectively, consultants judged more communication episodes to be inadequate when using the telephone (7 of 30) versus the HoloLens 2 (0 of 30) (p = 0.01). Qualitative feedback indicates that the HoloLens 2 was easy to use and would add value during an on-call scenario with remote consultant supervision.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the benefit that mixed-reality devices, such as the HoloLens 2 can bring to clinical communication through increasing the accuracy of communication and confidence of the users.

Keywords

Augmented realitycommunicationsimulation training
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 137 , Issue 10 , October 2023 , pp. 1165 - 1169
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr Laurence Orchard takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Martin, G, Koizia, L, Kooner, A, Cafferkey, J, Ross, C, Purkayastha, S et al. Use of the HoloLens2 mixed reality headset for protecting health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: prospective, observational evaluation. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:1–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitsuno, D, Ueda, K, Hirota, Y, Ogino, M. Effective application of mixed reality device Hololens: simple manual alignment of surgical field and holograms. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143:647–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casari, FA, Navab, N, Hruby, LA, Kriechling, P, Nakamura, R, Tori, R et al. Augmented reality in orthopedic surgery is emerging from proof of concept towards clinical studies: a literature review explaining the technology and current state of the art. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2021;14:192–203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, GK, Moshrefi, S, Fuertes, V, Veeravagu, L, Nazerali, R, Lin, SJ. What is your reality? virtual, augmented, and mixed reality in plastic surgery training, education, and practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;147:505–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherl, C, Stratemeier, J, Karle, C, Rotter, N, Hesser, J, Huber, L et al. Augmented reality with HoloLens in parotid surgery: how to assess and to improve accuracy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021;278:2473–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, S, Bokijonov, S, Choi, Y. Review of Microsoft HoloLens applications over the past five years. Appl Sci 2021;11:7259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biswas, D, Rafferty, A, Jassar, P. Night emergency cover for ENT in England: a national survey. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:899–902CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abbas, JR, Kenth, JJ, Bruce, IA. The role of virtual reality in the changing landscape of surgical training. J Laryngol Otol 2020;10:1–4Google Scholar
Malik, R, Abbas, JR, Jayarajah, C, Bruce, IA, Tolley, N. Mixed reality enhanced otolaryngology case-based learning: a randomized educational study. Laryngoscope 2023;133:1–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Microsoft HoloLens. Mixed reality technology for business. In: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens [17 November 2021]Google Scholar
Arrow, KJ. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. 1963. Bull World Health Organ 2004;82:141–9Google ScholarPubMed
Kuo, RL, Delvecchio, FC, Preminger, GM. Virtual reality: current urologic applications and future developments. J Endourol 2001;15:117–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, A, Auerbach, M, Hunt, EA, Chang, TP, Pusic, M, Nadkarni, V et al. Designing and conducting simulation-based research. Pediatrics 2014;133:1091–101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NHSmail Office 365 Teams deployment 2020. In: https://support.nhs.net/knowledge-base/england-nhsmail-office-365-teams-deployment-information-governance-considerations/ [30 January 2023]Google Scholar