World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 1128–1134 | Cite as

Telemedicine and Electronic Health Information for Clinical Continuity in a Mobile Surgery Program

  • Francisco Mora
  • Stephen Cone
  • Edgar Rodas
  • Ronald C. Merrell
Article

Abstract

Introduction

An intermittent surgical services program in rural Ecuador was able to benefit from close collaboration between surgeons and primary care physicians through the use of telemedicine technologies.

Methods

Inexpensive telemedicine workstations capable of patient documentation, imaging, and video-conferencing at extremely low bandwidth were established in collaborative primary care sites in rural Ecuador. Patients were screened for intermittent surgical services by primary caregivers according to the surgeons’ guidelines. Real-time and store-and-forward telemedicine allowed appropriate collaborative, informed decision-making. Surgery was performed, and postoperative care was similarly handled by on-site, familiar primary caregivers.

Results

To date, this system has been used in more than 124 patient encounters (74 preoperative and 50 postoperative visits). The system allowed advance screening of patients on the part of the surgeons, leading to cancellations for 9 patients. Postoperatively, the system allowed 100% concurrence in postoperative diagnoses between the primary caregivers and the surgeons.

Conclusions

Inexpensive, low-bandwidth telemedicine solutions can support intermittent surgical services by providing patients to have contact with specialist care through their familiar, local primary caregivers.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. WHO Countries: Ecuador. Available at: http://www.who.int/countries/ecu/en/. Accessed Jan 11, 2005
  2. 2.
    Gershon-Cohen J, Cooley AG. Telognosis. Radiology 1950;55:582–587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brismar B. Hospital without borders: visions of telemedicine. Nor Med 1995;110:209–210Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doolittle GC, Allen A. Practicing oncology via telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 1997;3(2):67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldberg MA. Teleradiology and telemedicine. Radiol Clin North Am 1996;34:647–665PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosser JC Jr, Bell RL, Harnett B, et al. Use of mobile low-bandwidth telemedical techniques for extreme telemedicine applications. J Am Coll Surg 1999;189:397–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doarn CR, Fitzgerald S, Rodas E, et al. Telemedicine to integrate intermittent surgical services into primary care. Telemed J E Health 2002;8:131–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosser JC Jr, Prosst RL, Rodas EB, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of portable low-bandwidth telemedical applications for postoperative follow-up: initial results. J Am Coll Surg 2000;191:196–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rodas E, Mora F, Tamariz F, et al. Low bandwidth telemedicine for pre- and postoperative educatin in mobile surgical services. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11:191–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Satava R, Angood PB, Harnett B, et al. Ambulant physiological cipher: real time monitoring of status and position on Everest. Telemed J E Health 2000;6:303–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodas E, Latifi R, Cone S, et al. Telesurgical presence and consultation for open surgery. Arch Surg 2002;137:1360–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rafiq A, Moore JA, Zhao X, et al. Digital video capture and synchronous consultation in open surgery. Ann Surg 2004;239:567–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rafiq A, Moore JA, Doarn CR, Merrell RC. Asynchronous confirmation of anatomical landmarks by optical capture in open surgery. Arch Surg 2003;138:792–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR. Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery: initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1790–1792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pande RU, Patel Y, Powers CJ. The telecommunication revolution in the medical field: present applications and future perspective. Curr Surg 2003;60:636–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marescaux J, Rubino F. The Zeus robotic system: experimental and clinical applications. Surg Clin North Am 2003;83:1305–1315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drasin T, Dutson E, Garcia C. Use of a robotic system as surgical first assistant in advance laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2004;199:368–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacob BP, Gagner M. Robotics and general surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2003;83:1405–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Samuels SI. We are such stuff as dream are made on ....The Tempest. CSA [California Society of Anesthesiologists] Bull 1995;44(1):7–10Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toapanta S, Viteri E. Cirugía ambulatoria: una alternative en la atención primaria. Bol Epidemiol Azuay 1997;1:55Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chelala C. Bringing surgery to the rural areas of Ecuador. Lancet 1998;352:715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodas E. Mobile surgery a new way of treatment. CSA [California Society of Anesthesiologists] Bull 1996;45(1):5–9Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodas E, Rodas EB. Mobile surgery: the new frontier. Surg Technol Int 1997;6:77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodas E, Vicuna A, Merrell RC. Intermittent and mobile surgical services: logistics and outcomes. World J Surg 2005;29:1335–1339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Mora
    • 1
  • Stephen Cone
    • 1
  • Edgar Rodas
    • 2
  • Ronald C. Merrell
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical Informatics and Technology Applications Consortium, Department of SurgeryVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Fundación CinterandesUniversity of Azuay, Medical SchoolCuencaEcuador

Personalised recommendations