Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Glass Making Its Way Into Operating Rooms

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the all-the-better-to-operate-with dept.

Google 120

kkleiner writes "Among the possible uses for Google Glass that early adopters are dreaming up, you can now add 'surgical assistance' to the list. With approval from the institutional review board, a UCSF cardiothoracic surgeon recently utilized Glass during procedures by utilizing its voice activation features to refer to patient x-ray scans. Aimed at providing surgeons with the most up-to-date patient data, a startup named VitaMedicals is building apps to stream in patient records and live scans to the device. Even though it's early days for Glass, its potential in the medical space is huge and could revolutionize how doctor's access and apply information from patient records."

cancel ×

120 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How much does Google stand to lose with something (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#45575521)

How much does Google stand to lose with something bad happens?

As they may get sued if there is a mess up.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (4, Informative)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 9 months ago | (#45575595)

I doubt it, all they have to do is state that they never intended it for medical use. So long as they don't advertise it as such, they're fine, any liability is on the doc and/or hospital.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45577287)

Then it will "Never" be used in medicine, There are Laws/Regs. that "ANYTHING" used in medicine must be designed and more importantly carry liability Insurance from the Manufacture.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575621)

Does Dell or HP get sued when there is an issue with the network or file servers at the hospital?

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about 9 months ago | (#45575927)

If they marketed it as medical-grade, I imagine they might well, yes. In this case, either Google is marketing Google Glass as medical-grade or, much more likely, doctors/hospitals have decided to use a non-medical-grade product as an aid in surgery.

What's the worst that could happen?

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 9 months ago | (#45576421)

All kinds of stuff in an OR is not certified for medical use - computers, keyboards, etc. As long as it doesn't touch the patient, that's fine.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 9 months ago | (#45577481)

Are you certain they use off-the-shelf computers in OR's? Frankly I got out of the medical electronics business a long time ago, but I recall that any electronic equipment had to be designed so that there was no chance of it creating a spark and doing fun things with the flammable anesthetics. Sparks don't have to be like the things you get from Tesla coils. For example, switches (even relatively low current/voltage) can produce small sparks. You might not even notice if you were looking. Also, something like a component burning up in a power supply can be bad news. In a non-explosive atmosphere such things can often be contained with the appropriate use of materials, so the flame doesn't spread. In a potentially explosive atmosphere it's different.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 9 months ago | (#45576471)

Likely the software will have to be FDA approved under section 503 or whatever it is.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about 9 months ago | (#45577249)

Isn't 503 for tax or something?

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

mbone (558574) | about 9 months ago | (#45576109)

Probably not much, as long as they got certified. From Justices Shield Medical Devices From Lawsuits [nytimes.com]

Makers of medical devices like implantable defibrillators or breast implants are immune from liability for personal injuries as long as the Food and Drug Administration approved the device before it was marketed and it meets the agency’s specifications, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (2, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45575705)

Normally there'd be a computer, and the doctor would shout directions to a nurse that would bring up the images. The screen is not a "medical device" and if the computer crashed, it wouldn't bring liability on Dell or MS. It isn't a "medical device" but an imaging device.

Holding Glass liable in that situation would be like suing Nike if the doctor tripped over his laces, as I rarely see doctors barefoot, shoes must be medical devices, right?

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575755)

You are mistaken. A screen showing data and providing feedback to the surgeon is a medical instrument. It's the same a blood pressure monitor showing the sensor data. If you display erroneous information the you will be liable.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (3, Insightful)

Webcommando (755831) | about 9 months ago | (#45575879)

If you display erroneous information the you will be liable.

Previous poster pointed out that this is true if sold as a medical device by an OEM. Medical device OEMs have a strict set of guidelines they need to follow for the creation of these devices--risk management, CAPA processes, demonstration that design outputs are tested against design inputs. (FDA 21 CFR Part 820, for example)

That being said, a hospital has a much less stringent set of requirements (though I believe there is much discussion in the FDA related to this). With the proper research agreements, IRB review (Institutional Review Board), and following proper research procedures (e.g. patient consent), a doctor can try new ideas, technology, or off-label use of existing device. However, Google would not be liable unless they want to sell a healthcare version.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45575923)

So the Dell screen I've seen in an OR is a licensed medical device because it could show medical information? I don't believe you.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

javajawa (126489) | about 9 months ago | (#45576107)

No, but the software on it is. The Dell monitor was implemented by the solution provider and tested to be capable for the job.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45576225)

I don't believe you. When I looked, the only licensed software are the packages that include diagnostic functions. If it's purely a display, it doesn't need to be certified any more than the paper that holds the bill for your OR visit.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (3, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 9 months ago | (#45576361)

You're correct. We have monitors all over the place. In the OR / ER / nurses station. We transmit patient data all of the time. Images / text. We buy whatever we need from the open market. I've had a bit of an issue getting IT not to buy the absolute cheapest panels on the planet, but anything mid spec these days is perfectly fine.

Anything electrical needs to pass some simple leakage tests, but our bio med tech does this on every piece of electronic equipment at least once a year anyway. But no certification is required.

Radiologist like these idiot expensive BARCO monitors (about 5 grand a pop). They have a 16 bit data path from the card to the screen (everybody else uses 8 or 10 except most laptops which are typically 6 bit paths) and do a wonderful job of greyscale display, but they're not 'medical' devices.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (3, Informative)

KillaGouge (973562) | about 9 months ago | (#45578453)

But they are medical devices as they are diagnostic quality monitors. 5 grand a pop is cheap. Typically for a 5 Megapixel monitor pair and video card we would be 27 grand. The reason you need 5 Megapixel is because it is what is required by the FDA to interpret diagnostic mammography. The manufacturer has to show that the monitor complies with DICOM rendering standards and they have to be calibrated by a physicist regularly. For MRI, Ultrasound, and Computed Tomography (CT) a typical monitor can be used. Digital Computed Radiography (CR) aka Digital X-Ray, you need at least a 3 Megapixel monitor to properly display the diagnostic information contained in the images.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 9 months ago | (#45575877)

this is why the doctor has liability insurance, if he does trip and stab the patient or look at a wrong chart, he is liable not the device.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45575943)

Surgical scrubs include shoe coverings that cover laces. Someone, somewhere, thought of that.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 9 months ago | (#45575827)

Uh, why would they even be responsible?

As they would easily laugh this out of court, google is also not someone you mess with legally.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (2)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about 9 months ago | (#45575835)

Google isn't at risk as long as they are not selling it as a medical device. If someone wanted to create specific medical software for it they could but they would most likely need to file for FDA clearance. If something bad did happen, it would be on the entity that created the app and not Google.

Re:How much does Google stand to lose with somethi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45576959)

Getting sued "if something bad happens" that isn't gross negligence on the part of the doctor is only a concern in the USA. The rest of the world with reasonable tort laws gets to use new technology to improve various procedures without worrying about lawsuit bingo.

Fuck that (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575525)

Now we have glassholes in the OR. Wonderful..

Re:Fuck that (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 9 months ago | (#45575557)

How is this better than a huge-ass monitor?

And how do you sterilize them?

Re:Fuck that (4, Funny)

game kid (805301) | about 9 months ago | (#45575603)

From the bacteria, or the advertisements?

Re:Fuck that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575761)

Yeah!
Hype, Hype, Hype.
Where is the product??
Is really another 1940's "Flying Car" scenario?

Yeah, you can make them, but there is no market for the damn thing.

(And they keep the hype up because they won't admit it is a market failure.)

Re:Fuck that (0)

Wookact (2804191) | about 9 months ago | (#45576309)

Mass produced flying vehicles are not feasible for a number or reasons, the least of which is technology.

Lets see, the amount of fuel needed will kill mileage.
I don't trust the way people drive on roads. Id hate to see the bad drivers when they have an entirely new dimension to operate in.
What about the specialized training needed for safe takeoff and landing.
WIll people be required to drive following roads, or just willy nilly over peoples property? What if they crash? Into your house?
I can't imagine the issues air traffic controllers will have to deal with.
I am sure there are plenty of other reasons I am missing too. Flying cars are a very bad idea IMHO.

Re:Fuck that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45576701)

auto-pilots are the answer.

aircraft mostly fly themselves already

some time ago a pilot in a newish passenger jet counted how many times he had to touch the controls in a flight from, i think it was, New York to London, he only had to touch the controls 7 times. and i assume part of that was telling the auto pilot where to go.

Re:Fuck that (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 9 months ago | (#45576865)

Is really another 1940's "Flying Car" scenario?

Yeah, you can make them, but there is no market for the damn thing.

(And they keep the hype up because they won't admit it is a market failure.)

No. "They" keep the hype up because there are still plenty of marks out there, willing to invest in flying cars. Paul Moller has monetized his Skycar for fifty years.

Re:Fuck that (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45575727)

I imagine they'd be easier to sterilize than a huge-ass monitor.

But yes, they are no different than a monitor. I'm not sure why people are so frightened by a monitor. It is a voice controlled computer with monitor. So the doctor can do it himself (with voice commands) rather than bark orders at a nurse for what to display on the big-ass monitor. Or, in the old day, a separate table he had to look at with the printed materials on it, barking orders for someone else to change pages.

Re:Fuck that (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 9 months ago | (#45576721)

I imagine they'd be easier to sterilize than a huge-ass monitor.

Huge-ass monitor can be behind a glass screen. Blast it with some antiseptic, job done.

Re:Fuck that (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 9 months ago | (#45576893)

a huge-ass monitor.

I believe that would be a colonoscope.

Re:Fuck that (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about 9 months ago | (#45577041)

Very little is sterilized - most stuff is sanitized. Generally anything which touches the patient is sterile; the rest is sanitary. By their very nature most if not all ORs are impossible to sterilize. There are some cheap and effective measures which can be used but each also has its own drawbacks and gotchas, among them live steam, UV bath, ozone, and bleach and alcohol mists. It boils down to real-world realities, risks and costs, and practicality.

It's unfortunate state of affairs in that it's routine to administer a course of antibiotics post op. For instance, I've had four full-on procedures in the past year and was on a heavy regime of antibiotics after every one, with two infections acquired either from OR or hospital, and two that I had going in.

Re:Fuck that (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 9 months ago | (#45577643)

I've had four full-on procedures in the past year and was on a heavy regime of antibiotics after every one, with two infections acquired either from OR or hospital, and two that I had going in

But do you know that those infections are due to the distinction in the OR between sanitary and sterile? Some countries (e.g. Norway, IIRC) have done a good job of reducing nosocomial infections. Have they done away with this distinction? If nothing else I heard that sheep dipping the OR personnel in antiseptic had some undesirable side effects.

Re:Fuck that (3, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#45575807)

How is this better than a huge-ass monitor?

Obviously there are some operations - especially in the US - where only a huge ass-monitor will do.

Re:Fuck that (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 9 months ago | (#45575865)

I thought the ass-monitor was post operation.

Shows what I know about medicine.

Re:Fuck that (2)

Derec01 (1668942) | about 9 months ago | (#45576087)

Easy. Far fewer disruptive head motions.

If my surgeon is deep into my chest cavity, I'd like him to have as much information on a heads up display as possible. Every repetitive head motion back and forth is a risk that a scalpel slips a bit as the rest of his body moves, cutting something important or just adding unnecessary lacerations to my insides.

Granted, robotic surgery is on its way. For the time being, though, there isn't anything quite as agile and responsive as a well trained surgeon's hands, even if he requires a bigger hole cut in my side to do it

As for sterilization, a combination of UV and being strapped to the head probably takes care of most of it.

Re:Fuck that (1)

javajawa (126489) | about 9 months ago | (#45576175)

With wipes - the glasses don't touch the patient. The point of the glasses is that the surgeon does not have to touch a computer, re-scrub, then return to surgery. The glasses are voice activated allowing the surgeon to interact with the software, then resume surgery without re-scrubbing. If the surgeon were to touch the glasses, they would have to re-scrub.

Re:Fuck that (1)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 9 months ago | (#45576497)

Probably keep it out of the sterile field, although systems like the Da Vinci surgical 'bots have sterile drapes since they have to be in the sterile field.

Re:Fuck that (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 9 months ago | (#45576733)

Probably keep it out of the sterile field

It's on his face.

Re:Fuck that (1)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 9 months ago | (#45576999)

So would his corrective eye wear be. The concept of a sterile field isn't easy to grasp but the surgeons face isn't autoclaved either.

What I'd like to see (3, Interesting)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 9 months ago | (#45575541)

This is probably years away, but if X-rays/CT scans/realtime data/etc. could be turned into a 3-D image, and the coordinates of that image "georegistered" with the patient on the table, we'd have an AR system capable of overlaying invisible information onto what the surgeon is sheeing as he/she operates.

E.g., superimposing the outlines of a tumor onto the surgeon's visual field "beyond" the visible surface of the body, so that the surgeon sees exactly where to cut and how deep.

"She-ing"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575651)

Are you implying that this type of technology would only be useful in male-to-female sexual reassignment surgery?

Re:What I'd like to see (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575871)

it already exists and its called image guided surgery with its many many different approaches and applications. yes, believe it or not, people have thought of that idea. the google glass thing is just another extension of a HUD. and by the way, its not so clear cut as to whether a HUD is useful in all surgical applications. see this decent little article which explains why:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/surgery-blinded-by-google-glass-advances-20130422-2iad9.html

Re:What I'd like to see (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 9 months ago | (#45577853)

it already exists and its called image guided surgery with its many many different approaches and applications. yes, believe it or not, people have thought of that idea. the google glass thing is just another extension of a HUD ...

But, but, but ... nobody could have thought of it before. It's not from a cool company like Google or even Silicon Valley. It's impossible I tell you.

This is why, despite the fact that there's still some great tech there, I think SV's main product has become hype. You don't have to look hard to find similar devices older than Google glass - the Wikipedia article has even has links. IIRC correctly another use for these types of HUD/camera/wireless devices is in things like aircraft repair. Crawl into some cramped spot inside the plane and it sucks to say "damn, forgot to check p. 417 of the manual!".

What is new about Google glass is the idea of marketing this as a consumer item, as though everyone would jump at the chance to be trendy and look like a bargain basement Borg. This marketing approach was described by P.T. Barnum when he said "there's a sucker born every minute".

Re:What I'd like to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45577953)

as always nobody bothers to read a useful commentary that was pointed out above and just go blithely on with there own little theories. i know, welcome to the real world.
1. like it was said, this is already out there on the market and has been subject to testing. the crux of the still outstanding problem is that an interface can be distracting.
2. the original article is from some singularity bullshit site. someone starry eyed engineer is dreaming that one day soon a miracle robot, made by google/apple or maybe linus torvalds, will come and save him/her from the pains of having to be stuck in this horrible bag of proteins.

Re:What I'd like to see (1)

mbone (558574) | about 9 months ago | (#45576039)

I have seen demos of exactly this. Don't know if it is on the market yet.

Re:What I'd like to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45576083)

So the robot surgeon sees, you mean.

I look forward to surgeons being obsoleted by technology.

(Well, I don't look forward - technology is good at getting everything complex done cheaper but worse.)

Re:What I'd like to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45577519)

How much of this is Google trying to force this device? This is typical of tech companies to do this type of PR, in order for them to make people believe there product isn't has bad as people fell it could be (bad - in the sense of it being used for spying, general evil) or just to get attention for funding, ect.

I am pretty sure there are medical devices being made similar if not better then Google Glass, and Google Glass is just as far away from being used in a such a Sci-fi way. I can see it being used for this type of industry (so don't think I am all anti-glass) and other industries as a vital tool/equipment. But remember the problem with Google is they want to create/patent then have everyone else do all the work practically for nothing, and in the end it will end up fragmented, leading to back doors, vulnerabilities, ect..

Voice activated (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 9 months ago | (#45575545)

What's really in the "John Doe Xrays" folder?
Surgeons were one of the few who couldn't easily "multitask" on the job.

Let me also move my Cyber Monday surgery, just to be safe.

"not suitable for use in life support systems..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575569)

Anyone who trusts consumer hardware + OS as sufficiently robust to deliver faithful medical imaging in the middle of an operation is off my list of doctors I want operating on me.

It's not that I don't think the guy has backup in the event of total system failure (surgeons aren't generally that stupid, though other industries might be) - it's that I don't trust that there won't be something misleading caused by a bug. Hell, my idea of a malicious Glasses virus would be something that fools the user about what they're looking at, and while I'd want primarily hope it would hit hipsters in bars, who knows what mischief could be done in this case.

Medical software and hardware should be separately developed and certified.

Re:"not suitable for use in life support systems.. (1)

Servaas (1050156) | about 9 months ago | (#45575623)

a UCSF cardiothoracic surgeon recently utilized Glass during procedures by utilizing its voice activation features to refer to patient x-ray scans

Shouldn't he have looked at those scans pre-operation? And people really think Google glass (a ui overlaying important, more relevant real life view) can replace a xray white board slightly to his left?

Re:"not suitable for use in life support systems.. (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45575803)

Yes, he did look at the scans pre-op. And Glass can replace a screen that requires he turns his head away from the patient to look at it. If he's pinching an artery closed while working on a compound fracture, do you want him looking away from the patient while reminding himself where the cluster of bone chips are when the technology exists to overlay the information in his field of vision while focused on saving the life of the car-crash victim? Of course, he'll have the X-ray up at the same time, in case the Glass fails for whatever reason, but isn't getting the information within your field of vision better?

Re:"not suitable for use in life support systems.. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45577235)

I'd love to have a surgeon with an eidetic memory. Those are pretty rare, though.

Re:"not suitable for use in life support systems.. (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 9 months ago | (#45575825)

I don’t know about you, but when I plan a road trip or plan to hit multiple locations in a single trip I plan out my route. I then check my route as I go along. Don’t do things on the fly, don’t do things from memory.

Most medical errors at not the big things, it is failing to execute on the small things. Checklist move anesthesiologist from one of the most error prone (i.e. high rate of malpractice suits) to one of the least error prone. (not sure if google glasses is the way to go, but it is intresting.)

Re:"not suitable for use in life support systems.. (1)

mbone (558574) | about 9 months ago | (#45576025)

Operations are complicated, messy, things, and surgeons are very interested in heads-up type displays to help answer questions like, "is my scalpel actually placed where I think it is?" Just like fighter pilots, they frequently do not want to take their eyes off of what they are doing. (I have worked in medical telepresence, and one of the things the surgeons most wanted was these kinds of headsup displays.)

Re:"not suitable for use in life support systems.. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 9 months ago | (#45575655)

Medical software and hardware should be separately developed and certified.

Yes. Let's let a bunch of people die so that we can reduce the already microscopic risk of harm a bit further. Medical technologies are one place where we really, desperately need serious risk management.

Re:"not suitable for use in life support systems.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575845)

Medical software and hardware should be separately developed and certified.

Yes. Let's let a bunch of people die so that we can reduce the already microscopic risk of harm a bit further. Medical technologies are one place where we really, desperately need serious risk management.

No, no, no! The software and hardware ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE developed and certified together. Otherwise you;re risking lives on some obscure undocumented incompatibility between disparate pieces.

Re:"not suitable for use in life support systems.. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 9 months ago | (#45576005)

So how many lives are worth the few that might be lost on some obscure incompatibility? And next time you're in a hospital room, look at the equipment in the room. Do you really believe all that gear has been certified to work together? No, it's being tested on whoever is the patent in that room. And if something goes wrong, it'll eventually be fixed.

I see no reason to change my opinion.

Re:"not suitable for use in life support systems.. (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45575751)

Anyone who trusts consumer hardware + OS as sufficiently robust to deliver faithful medical imaging in the middle of an operation is off my list of doctors I want operating on me.

So changing from Windows 7 with an imaging program to Glass is a step back? And Win7 with a commercial imaging program was a step back from having to mess with a pile of printouts? You want the surgeon focused on the patient, with supporting information available, not focused on accessing the supporting information, with breaks to cut on the patient.

Head Mirror 2.0 (1)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 9 months ago | (#45575577)

So now instead of this [mentalfloss.com] we have this [digitaltrends.com] ?

I'm surprised they don't already have this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575599)

HUDs in the OR open up a ton of possibilities, from easier and more intuitive arthroscopic surgery to better endoscopic exploration. X-rays and MRI results can be mapped to the body, eliminating the need to constantly glance at a nearby monitor. Vitals and other telemetry can be updated in realtime. Hell, remember when the whole "we're going to use sharpies to mark the correct surgery location" [nytimes.com] thing was a big deal?

What about HIPPA compliance? (1)

generic_screenname (2927777) | about 9 months ago | (#45575617)

This is a really interesting application, but I can't even begin to imagine the challenges with patient privacy on a platform like this.

Re:What about HIPPA compliance? (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 9 months ago | (#45575691)

Acronym Nazi reminds you it's HIPAA.

Re:What about HIPPA compliance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575715)

If half of the Slashdot community is to be believed, you should be ok with Google having all your data cause they're such nice honest guys.

Re:What about HIPPA compliance? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45575913)

Load up the images on SD card, and turn off transmit. What possible HIPAA issues could there be? Not that I take HIPAA concerns seriously from someone who doesn't know what it is. Sound it out if you forget how to spell it

Re:What about HIPPA compliance? (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 9 months ago | (#45578545)

Load up the images on SD card, and turn off transmit. What possible HIPAA issues could there be?

If you read the article, you'd know that the images were being "transmitted over wi-fi" during the surgery. I'm guessing that means they were on the guy's Google Drive; but in any case they weren't pre-loaded onto Glass.

And the article also talked about "manually scrubbing" all patient info from the images to comply with privacy guidelines. I have a hard time believing that would be enough - it's not like a surgeon does hundreds of surgeries in a day, it'd be fairly easy to match an image to a patient.

Me, next time I need surgery (hopefully not for a long while) I'm going to ask some pointed questions of my surgeon about this sort of thing beforehand. The concept is great, but I don't want Google to have my innards in their databases - I'm doubtful he's even thought about the bigger privacy picture at all.

Re:What about HIPPA compliance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45576219)

What's HIPPA?

Do you mean HIPAA?

Re:What about HIPPA compliance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45577567)

HIPPA is the "catch me if you can" children's game in Finnish, screamed. They scream "HIPPA" when you are it.

Early adopters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575665)

I saw person-portable "heads-up displays" in Radio-Electronics magazines 15 years ago. What's different this time?

Re:Early adopters? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#45576351)

Could you give some more information about what it was you saw 15 years ago? Because I saw deloreans capable of reverse time travel decades ago, that doesn't mean much. Odds are several things is the answer. Economics, computing power, battery power, PR, R&D budgets....

Great for colonoscopy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575683)

Finally, the NSA is really going to get up our asses.

Sterilization (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 9 months ago | (#45575743)

So how are they going to sterilize it? It is a piece of commercial kit and should not come close to an operating theatre.

Re:Sterilization (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about 9 months ago | (#45575869)

If its in the US, they will just throw it away and charge your health care provider for a new one. Your provider will raise everyone's rates. You will still pay more than everyone else in the world.

Re:Sterilization (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 9 months ago | (#45575921)

Europeans' English is always so amusing. "Operating theatre" like everybody is having their spleen taken out in an old timey lecture hall surrounded by tiers of murmuring onlookers at a university. The 19th century called and they want their conventions back.

Re:Sterilization (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575999)

How do you sterilize the doctor face? Or even his regular glass? You don't.

The whole thing, along with this eye, nose, and the rest of this face, goes behind the face shield. Which is a sterile transparent plastic film that protect the surgeon's sight from projected body fluid during the operation.

Re:Sterilization (2)

TheMeuge (645043) | about 9 months ago | (#45576011)

Why would it need to be sterilized? It's on a person's face, probably the dirtiest place in the OR. Or are you suggesting that we autoclave all the other surgeons' premium eyewear?

The disposable plastic face shield goes in front of the dirty bacteria-ridden face, glasses or not.

There's no way it would pass validation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575769)

This will be great if it happens because maybe Google can convince FDA and ISO to tone down the stupid on their validation requirements.

More dehumanization in medicine (1)

ugen (93902) | about 9 months ago | (#45575771)

In recent years, during doctor visits about 50-80% of their time was spent looking at computer (or tablet) screen, reading, typing etc. So the time actually looking at and/or examining the patient is already a minority. Add "Google glass" - and they are not really "looking at a patient" even when they do. Great.

Re:More dehumanization in medicine (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 9 months ago | (#45575945)

You sound like the kind of person for whom the Google Glass is always half empty.

Re:More dehumanization in medicine (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 9 months ago | (#45576035)

lol dude that was no doctor its a PA. I haven't seen a real doctor in years because they are passing us off to PA who are NOT doctors. Dont know what a PA is? look it up. We are getting screwed we pay super high for insurance and now ere getting passed off to PAs.

Re:More dehumanization in medicine (1)

Derec01 (1668942) | about 9 months ago | (#45576105)

I'm sort of hoping my surgeon isn't staring deeply into my eyes to make that vital human connection while I'm strapped down unconscious in the OR.

Re:More dehumanization in medicine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45577333)

But, I would hope he was staring deeply into my splayed-open guts, keeping an eye out for subtle signs of anything amiss, rather than concentrating on catching up on the reading he should have done before entering the OR.

Re:More dehumanization in medicine (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | about 9 months ago | (#45576123)

Well, if we didn't have to document several fold more, and got paid less for interacting with patients, we may do it. As it stands, unless a doctor is doing something to you, he/she is unlikely to get paid much. Obviously there are upsides and downsides to a system that rewards cutting but not measuring.

Requirements for OR Electronics (2)

mbone (558574) | about 9 months ago | (#45575935)

"Among the possible uses for Google Glass that early adopters are dreaming up, you can now add 'surgical assistance' to the list. With approval from the institutional review board, a UCSF cardiothoracic surgeon recently utilized Glass during procedures ..."

I have been involved with getting electronics into operating rooms, and it is an expensive, complicated and time consuming process. FDA requirements [fda.gov] apply to all medical devices; with RFI [ce-mag.com] being a big problem, especially in an OR environment (which is full of "mission critical" electronic gear). To be blunt, if Google glass interferes with the electronics already in the OR, patients could die, and everyone involved with getting it there would be directly responsible.

From my perspective, the note-worthy thing about this story would be getting the certification needed to take Google Glass into the OR, as that would probably be the hardest thing to do, much harder than some trivial HIPAA scrubbing, and it puzzles me that that is not mentioned in the article. So, I have to wonder, did they actually do this, or is Google and UCSF just winging it and hoping no one dies during their trials?

Proprietary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45575937)

Proprietary garbage should not have a place in such serious and important environments.

Re:Proprietary (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 9 months ago | (#45576937)

Let me guess...you want the computers in the OR to have Linux on them.

combine with Clippy for even more fun (4, Funny)

SylvesterTheCat (321686) | about 9 months ago | (#45576041)

"Hi. You appear to be performing a heart transplant. Can I help?"

Now that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45576079)

is a good idea for Google glass.

Video medical/surgical records (1)

Chas (5144) | about 9 months ago | (#45576127)

Yeah. This is me taking out your spleen.
That's Nurse Ratchet juggling it.
Wait...that was your kidney...
Why are there two of them?
Oh crap!

Re:Video medical/surgical records (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45576255)

You can already find more videos of medical procedures on youtube than you can stand to watch (beware, I really mean it!).

Re:Video medical/surgical records (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 9 months ago | (#45576335)

Gladly (or not), you'll be asleep when the doctor says "glass, erase the last ten minutes of the video"

Re:Video medical/surgical records (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45577359)

"glass, erase my identifying metadata from that video, and post it to 'funny medical bloopers live dot com'".

Re:Video medical/surgical records (1)

Chas (5144) | about 9 months ago | (#45577031)

Actually I have a med/surg background.

So, I can stand a lot...

Societal Retards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45576265)

> could revolutionize how doctor's access and apply information from patient records.

Is it really that hard to understand when and when not to use an apostrophe?

Totally Expected (1)

some old guy (674482) | about 9 months ago | (#45576615)

I'm sure many glass users will wind up in operating rooms for trauma treatment and rectal extractions.

Price just changed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45576663)

With medical use the price of Google Glass was just adjusted slightly to $19,000.

How can doctors secure it? (2)

Slugster (635830) | about 9 months ago | (#45578027)

I was under the impression that (US) doctors had to maintain medical record security. If Google is able to monitor everything the glasses are used for, how would this be possible?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>