Distributed architecture system for monitoring intensive care patients

The main goal of an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is to stabilize patients who are in critical condition. To this end, patients’ vital signs are recorded using monitoring systems that employ different types of sensors. The attending physician analyzes these records and, based on their medical knowledge and experience, administer different medications to improve the patient’s condition. The infusion pumps used to administer these medications, as well as the monitoring devices that show the patient’s vital signs, are usually at the patient’s bedside or, in the ideal case, connected to a central control system in the ICU. This implies that the physician should be physically present in the ICU in order to oversee the decisionmaking process. In addition, it is necessary that the physician be provided with an easy-to-use (usable) interface to the monitoring system such that the information is displayed in an optimal manner to efficiently support medical decision-making. In this paper we describe the design and implementation of a system architecture whose objective is to both capture ICU patient data using the MECIF protocol as well as to display the information to the attending physician irrespective of his/her location via mobile devices (Tablet PCs and PDAs) connected to a dedicated server. Through this remote interface, the physician will be able to visualize the patient’s vital signs and subsequently decide on the appropriate treatment course by remotely controlling the pumps that administer medication to the patient

[1]  R M Gardner,et al.  Computers in critical care. , 1995, Critical care nursing clinics of North America.

[2]  H. Wulf,et al.  [Computer-aided anesthesia monitoring. Experiences with the use of three systems in heart surgery]. , 1993, Der Anaesthesist.

[3]  P. Coriat,et al.  Target-controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil in cardiac anaesthesia: influence of age on predicted effect-site concentrations. , 2003, British journal of anaesthesia.

[4]  D. Baumgart Personal digital assistants in health care: experienced clinicians in the palm of your hand? , 2005, The Lancet.

[5]  Wanchun Tang,et al.  Comparison between dobutamine and levosimendan for management of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction* , 2005, Critical care medicine.

[6]  F. Cantraine,et al.  Target‐controlled infusion of propofol induction with or without plasma concentration constraint in high‐risk adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery , 2002, Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica.

[7]  H. Bae,et al.  Effects of Inotropic Drugs on Mechanical Function and Oxygen Balance in Postischemic Canine Myocardium: Comparison of Dobutamine, Epinephrine, Amrinone, and Calcium Chloride , 2005, Journal of Korean medical science.

[8]  O. Goksel,et al.  Comparison of Antihypertensives after Coronary Artery Surgery , 2005, Asian cardiovascular & thoracic annals.

[9]  S. Mohiuddin,et al.  Role of postoperative use of adrenergic drugs in occurrence of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery , 2005, Clinical cardiology.

[10]  J. Abrams,et al.  Beneficial actions of nitrates in cardiovascular disease. , 1996, The American journal of cardiology.

[11]  C L Bowes,et al.  Telematics and protocols of care in critical care environments. , 1995, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[12]  C. Garrard,et al.  A comparison of handwritten and computer-assisted prescriptions in an intensive care unit , 1998, Critical care.