FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Use of wearable technology in improving emergency care and health outcomes for patients with urgent health complaints: protocol for a scoping review

Por: Alotaibi · R. · Alghaith · A. · Noehrer · L. H. · Kitchen · G. B. · Body · R.
Introduction

Since the 1970s, telemedicine has transformed significantly, becoming a critical component of modern healthcare delivery. Over time, technological innovation has increasingly emphasised the integration of the human body with digital systems to develop non-invasive methods for monitoring physiological parameters. Among these technologies, wearable sensors demonstrate substantial potential for continuous patient monitoring. These devices can facilitate real-time data collection, enable more rapid clinical decision-making and promote active patient participation in health management. Such capabilities are particularly valuable in emergency contexts, including prehospital care provided by ambulance services and telephone triage systems. Despite the growing interest in wearable health technologies, their integration into emergency medical services (EMS) remains insufficiently explored and warrants further investigation. We aim to map current research, explore the use of wearables in EMS settings and identify gaps in knowledge regarding their use in EMS.

Methods and analysis

This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic search of relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ProQuest and Web of Science) will be conducted, from inception to March 2026. All types of study designs, including quantitative and qualitative studies, will be considered in this scoping review. The inclusion is limited to studies published in English. Two independent reviewers (RA and AA) will conduct a thorough screening of titles and abstracts against the predefined inclusion criteria. Studies that meet the inclusion criteria will be reviewed in full text. Quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the JBI’s critical appraisal tools for the relevant study types. The findings will be presented using diagrams or tables, supplemented by narrative summaries following the JBI guidelines.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required. The findings of this study will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Registration

Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/MUEFX).

Health economic impact of early versus delayed treatment of herpes simplex virus encephalitis in the UK

Por: Defres · S. · Navvuga · P. · Moore · S. · Hardwick · H. · Easton · A. · Michael · B. D. · Kneen · R. · Griffiths · M. · ENCEPHUK Study Group · Medina-Lara · A. · Solomon · T. · Barlow · Beeching · Blanchard · Body · Boyd · Cebria-Prejan · Chadwick · Cooke · Crawford · Davies · Davies
Objective

Thanks to the introduction of recent national guidelines for treating herpes simplex virus (HSV) encephalitis, health outcomes have improved. This paper evaluates the health system costs and the health-related quality of life implications of these guidelines.

Design and setting

A sub-analysis of data from a prospective, multi-centre, observational cohort ENCEPH-UK study conducted across 29 hospitals in the UK from 2012 to 2015.

Study participants

Data for patients aged ≥16 years with a confirmed HSV encephalitis diagnosis admitted for treatment with aciclovir were collected at discharge, 3 and 12 months.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Patient health outcomes were measured by the Glasgow outcome score (GOS), modified ranking score (mRS) and the EuroQoL; healthcare costs were estimated per patient at discharge from hospital and at 12 months follow-up. In addition, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D utility scores. Cost–utility analysis was performed using the NHS and Social Care perspective.

Results

A total of 49 patients were included; 35 were treated within 48 hours, ‘early’ (median (IQR) 8.25 [3.7–20.5]) and 14 were treated after 48 hours ‘delayed’ (median (IQR) 93.9 [66.7–100.1]). At discharge, 30 (86%) in the early treatment group had a good mRS outcome score (0–3) compared with 4 (29%) in the delayed group. According to GOS, 10 (29%) had a good recovery in the early treatment group, but only 1 (7%) in the delayed group. EQ-5D-3L utility value at discharge was significantly higher for early treatment (0.609 vs 0.221, p

Conclusions

This study suggests that early treatment may be associated with better health outcomes and reduced patient healthcare costs, with a potential for savings to the NHS with faster treatment.

❌