Patient Perceptions of Google Glass in the Outpatient Dermatology Setting
PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF GOOGLE GLASS IN THE OUTPATIENT DERMATOLOGY SETTING Background: The ubiquitous use of electronic health record (EHRs) during medical office visits using a computer monitor and keyboard can be distracting and disrupt patient-healthcare provider (HCP) non-verbal eye contact cues, which are integral to effective communication. Provider use of a remote medical scribe with face-mounted eyeglass technology, such as Google Glass (GG), may preserve patient-HCP communication in the
... ommunication in the healthcare setting by allowing providers to access other parts of the patient's EHR (e.g. laboratory results, current medications, immunization records) all while maintaining direct eye contact with their patients. The medical scribe is able to chart patient encounters in real-time working on or off site, documenting the visit directly into the EHR and freeing the HCP to focus only on the patient. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine patient perceptions of their interaction with a HCP who used GG with a remote medical scribe during office visits. Additionally, the author sought to identify any associations between patient privacy and trust in their HCP when GG is used in the medical office setting. Methods: For this descriptive, cross-sectional study, a convenience sample of patients was recruited from an outpatient dermatology clinic in Northern California. Participants provided demographic data and completed a 12-item questionnaire to assess their familiarity, comfort, privacy, and perceptions following routine office visits with a HCP where GG was used to document the clinical encounter. Data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Over half (59.4%, n = 102) of the 170 study participants were female, Caucasian (60%, n = 102), Asian (24.1%, n = 41), college-educated (89%, n = 151), and ranged between 18 and 90 years of age (M = 50.5, SD = 17.4). The majority of participants (69.4%, n = 118) were familiar with GG, not concerned with a privacy issues (77.6%, n = 132), and stated the use of GG did not affect their trust in the HCP (81.8%, n = 139). Moreover, participants comfortable with the use of GG were less likely to be concerned about privacy (p < .001) and participants who trusted their HCP were less likely to be concerned about them using GG (p < .009). Almost one third (29%, n = 49) stated they would likely adopt technology early on and 87% (n = 148) preferred their HCP use GG if it delivered better care. Conclusions: Study findings support the use of GG for outpatient dermatology visits. Future research should explore the use of GG in other areas of healthcare and strive to include a diverse socioeconomic patient population in study samples.