Slashdot Mirror
Medical Briefcase For In-Flight Patient Evaluation
Makarand writes "On average one plane a day makes an unscheduled landing somewhere around
the world when a passenger unexpectedly falls ill and requires medical
attention. Diversion costs for an airline, related to fuel
expenses and cost of putting people in hotels, can be anywhere between
$50,000- $100,000 for each diversion. Now Airbus, in collaboration
with the French Space agency, has come up with a solution in the form
of a satellite-connected medical briefcase to determine if the patient needs urgent medical attention on the ground before making a diversion
according to this
BBC News article. A crew member
with proper training can use the device to complete a medical examination
of the patient in 2 minutes and download the data using satellite in
real time to a hospital. A diversion is made if the emergency physician feels that the patient needs medical attention on the ground. Airbus believes that as planes
get bigger, fuel efficient and fly longer hours with more number of
people the chances of someone needing medical attention will increase
creating a market for this device."
The first time that one of these systems is used and a passenger/patient dies because his/her plane was not diverted to the closest possible landing site where the appropriate medical aid could have saved their life is the day that the airlines will ditch these devices.
Can you just imagine what kind of field day the lawyers, press and politicians would have in that scenario? Can you see how fast the relevant airline's stock would plummet? And how hard a blow it would make to their future bookings?
Nothing cripples a business faster than a reputation for putting profits before the safety and lives of their customers - just ask Firestone.
The day that airlines start rolling out these devices is the day to start dumping your airline (and other aviation) stock. Oh yeah, you might think about changing your choice of carrier too - or perhaps even taking a slower, more eco-friendly and safer form of transport (hint: trains).
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Good point. Might as well just give free tickets to E.R. doctors.
~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
When I see a situation with people in charge of someone else's medical care in any way, I see the potential for a lawsuit. If the use of these medical kits amount to a medical diagnosis, then the person in charge of administering the diagnosis may be at risk of being sued for malpractice.
With the already sky-high rates of malpractice lawsuits and the incredibly high cost of malpractice insurance, I don't see this a cost effective or practical way to determine if medical care is needed. The random "is there a doctor on the flight" may be much more effective.. or even hiring a doctor for each flight may be more cost effective as well, if one considers all the possible lawsuits from an undertrained flight attendant using a medical device such as this.
Besides, combine the chance of misdiagnosis with the chance that the person doesn't understand how to correctly use the machine (this is a technological device, folks) and it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
-Matt
Whatever happened to the idea of super- and hypersonic airliners? It seems to me that if you reduce the time spent in an airliner, you reduce exposure to whatever stresses the body experiences.
Having flown over the pacific 11 times now, even I (extreme miser) would fess up an extra $200 for, say 5-6 hour flight rather than the 10-12 hours it takes now.
Back on topic, trans-oceanic flights do pose an interesting problem for this: Where exactly do you divert to if you are flying from SFO to Narita?
A crew member with proper training can now take basic heart, blood, temperature and sugar level readings.
Not much info to provide a complete examination, isn't it?
1. Heart Info: Any kind of dysrhythmia as well as immediate signs of heart failure and circulatory collapse (such as any of the kinds of shock).
2. Blood: A vast number of things.
3. Temperature: Fevers? (see 1)
4. Blood sugars: Hyper/Hypoglycaemia. Which sometimes can look quite similar and therefore can be difficult to treat (the treatments are opposite in nature).
I'd say this covers a lot. There's not a lot else you'd do in a general first work-up. Obviously any patient notes could also be sent to the doctor, adding to the clinical picture.
Heart: You will get the pulse, say, but I doubt this machine will give a complete electrocardiogram (EKG) to diagnose arrythmias. For one thing, you have to be trained just to apply the leads, and an EKG is very expensive. But conceivable. OTOH, I REALLY REALLY doubt this machine will listen for rales in the lungs (signs of congestive heart failure), let alone catheterize the pulmonary artery to determine the wedge pressure. In short, you will get pulse and blood pressure. Wow.
Temperature: A re-usable electric thermometer costs $10. Do you need to spend 5000 times as much to enable a flight attendant to take a temeprature?
Blood: This is more interesting. Will they be drawing venous blood (with a syringe and needle)? Probably not, too complicated. So they will be using a fingerstick as used now for glucose readings. This limits the possible tests. But the only test of any real value in an emergency situtation might be a troponin or CPK level (measures of heart damage as seen in a heart attack). I'm not sure that the technology exists to do this (1) in a drop of blood, (2) instantly, and (3) accurately (undercall: lawsuit; overcall: unnecessary emergency landing). What else are you going to diagnose? A low potassium level? So, give all sick passengers a glass of orange juice.
Sugar levels: Big deal. Easily done on the cheap. Low sugar ==> give patient something sweet. High sugar ==> rarely a true emergency. I suppose the blood monitoring could detect ketoacidosis, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an emergency, but patients in DKA are generally (1) comatose, (2) hypotensive (low blood pressure), (3) have a history of diabetes. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out, let alone a $50,000 medical kit. (FYI, if someone with diabetes is comatose, give them sugar. If they have low glucose, it will cure them. If they have too high glucose, it won't hurt them, just another drop in the bucket.)
Agree with the other posters, this kit will represent a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it's hard to imagine (given the BBC statistics) that it is cost-effective.
--A medical doctor